Update Doc Headers Footers

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

The description reveals that the tool handles both creation and update atomically: auto-creates if missing, replaces if exists. Annotations (destructiveHint=true) indicate mutation, but the description adds context about safety and idempotent-like behavior, complementing annotations without contradiction.

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?

The description is well-structured, starting with a clear statement of purpose, followed by a warning, then bullet points explaining behavior. Every sentence adds value and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given that the schema covers all parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for correct usage. It explains the core behavior and when to use the tool, without needing to describe return values or parameter details already in the schema.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra parameter guidance or examples are provided.

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 clearly states the tool creates or updates header/footer text in a Google Doc. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool batch_update_doc by explaining that this is the default, simpler approach, and warns against using the low-level operation for simple text setting.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (default tool for header/footer content) and when-not-to-use (avoid batch_update_doc with create_header_footer) with reasoning about advanced workflows and potential failure. It also clarifies that no separate creation step is needed.

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