add_header_footer

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether existing headers/footers are overwritten, permissions needed, or side effects on other document elements.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. But with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is sparse and does not fully contextualize the tool's behavior (e.g., ability to add header only, footer only, or both).

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, hence a baseline score of 3.

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 adds header and/or footer to a DOCX file. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edit_docx_paragraph or search_replace_docx.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over other DOCX manipulation tools, or when not to use it.

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