add_section_docx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutating operation on an existing Word file but says nothing about whether the write is in-place, whether existing content is preserved, what permissions are needed, or how failures are handled — significant gaps for a document-mutating tool.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and then gives illustrative examples; nothing is wasted. It could arguably spend a few more words covering parameters, but as a sentence it is tight and readable.

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 no explanation, but with 25 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is far short of what an agent needs to call this tool correctly. The int/float duplication (cm vs inches) and unit selection are never addressed.

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 25 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It mentions only orientation, column count, and page-number restart, leaving margins, paper size, gutters, start_type, and header/footer behavior completely undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Menambahkan section baru ke dokumen Word') and adds concrete examples (Landscape page, 2-column layout, page-number restart) that clarify the concept of a Word 'section'. It implicitly separates itself from add_page_break_docx by illustrating section-level properties rather than a mere break, though it never names a sibling.

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 examples hint at what a section can accomplish, but there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus add_page_break_docx, set_page_setup_docx, or get_page_setup_docx. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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