word_add_footer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits: it modifies footer text, handles empty string to clear first paragraph (V1), and lists specific errors (ERR_INVALID_PARAMS, ERR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, ERR_UNSUPPORTED_FMT). Disclosures like 'later sections keep their own footers' add valuable context beyond basic operation.

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 concise with a clear structure: one-sentence purpose, then elaboration, then structured Args/Returns/Raises sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, output schema exists), the description fully covers functionality, return value, and error conditions. No gaps remain for an AI agent to misunderstand invocation or expected outcomes.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter's purpose (path, text, section_index, folder) and default values. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Set the text of a section's footer.' This directly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like 'word_add_header' (header) and 'word_set_section' (section properties).

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 explains default behavior (first section only) and how to target other sections via 'section_index', providing clear context for use. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparison to sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient.

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