add_page_break_docx

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says a break is inserted into the .docx but never states that the file is mutated in place, whether the change is reversible, what happens on invalid indices, or any permission/locking requirements for a write operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and puts the operation first. It is dense but appropriately sized for the amount of information conveyed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a 6-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description should map parameters to placement modes and disclose side effects; the current text covers placement conceptually but leaves the parameter wiring implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does by enumerating break_type values (page/column/line) and implying the placement semantics behind paragraph_index, table_index, row, and col, but file_path and the row/col indexing convention are left entirely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb (menyisipkan/insert), the resource (page/column/line break), the target format (.docx), and the three placement modes (end of document, before a paragraph, inside a table cell). That is enough to tell it apart from most table-formatting siblings, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The three placement options imply when each mode applies, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g. add_horizontal_rule_docx or add_section_docx) for related layout needs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.