set_header_footer_docx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notes different_first_page, unlink section, and presets, but never states whether the operation is destructive to existing headers/footers, whether it requires the file to be closed/locked, whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains (even though an output schema exists, the mutation's side effects on existing content are undisclosed).

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?

Two well-formed sentences that front-load the core action and then enumerate capabilities. No padding or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

For a 16-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description is far too thin: it omits parameter behavior, side effects, authorization/file-state prerequisites, and preset semantics. The presence of an output schema excuses return-value explanation, but the input-side gaps remain severe.

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% and there are 16 parameters, so the description must compensate heavily. It explains only a handful of concepts (different_first_page, unlink section, preset names, page number fields) and says nothing about target values (header vs footer), header_footer_type, alignment, section_index, or the formatting params. Most parameters remain opaque.

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 (Mengatur/Menyisipkan) and resource (Header/Footer, nomor halaman) on .docx files, and enumerates the features it supports. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_header_footer_docx (read vs write) and from general formatting tools, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives in the description itself.

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 description implies purpose but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to prefer this over set_page_setup_docx for page numbering or when to use the preset versus manual parameters.

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