r7_docx_sections

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does add a genuinely useful behavioral fact: changing one property preserves the rest of the section (headers, footers, columns, grid, title-page). It still omits permission requirements, in-place vs copy side effects, and what 'read' reports, so disclosure is helpful but incomplete for a mutation tool with zero annotation support.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with scope and followed by the key preservation guarantee. No filler or redundancy.

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 17-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers scope, actions, and the section-preservation behavior well. The main gap is the shape of 'read' output, which the absence of an output schema leaves undocumented.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description names some property families that map to parameters (margins, columns, page-number restart) but adds no syntax, units, or defaults beyond what the schema already documents.

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 pair ('Read or change') and resource ('DOCX page setup and sections') and enumerates the exact properties covered (page size, orientation, margins, columns, page-number restart, breaks). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like r7_docx_formatting or r7_docx_header_footer without opening a schema.

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 property list implies when the tool applies (page/section layout), and the schema's action enum conveys read/set/insertBreak/remove. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against siblings such as r7_docx_formatting, so selection remains partially inferential.

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