insert_auto_number

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists arguments. It does not state what the insertion does to the document, whether it modifies existing numbering, what document state is required, or whether the operation is reversible. This leaves a mutation tool's effects largely 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?

The description is minimal and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list. Every line adds information and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only 4 simple parameters, the description is incomplete for safe invocation. The agent cannot determine valid num_type values, understand what num_format codes beyond 0 mean, or know the behavioral effects of inserting an auto-numbering field. The doc_id provenance hint is helpful but not enough to make the tool self-contained.

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?

The description adds some meaning beyond the bare schema: it identifies doc_id as coming from open_document, notes that num_format has 0 as default, and explains new_number is optional. However, num_type is only described as 'Numbering type,' which is nearly as vague as the schema, and no valid values or examples are provided despite the schema having no descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Insert') and a specific resource ('auto-numbering field'), which is clear enough to distinguish from text/table operations in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related formatting tools like set_numbering_style or set_bullet_style, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 only usage hint is that doc_id comes from open_document, which implies a prerequisite but not a condition for choosing this tool. There is no guidance on when to use insert_auto_number versus set_numbering_style or other numbering-related tools, and no mention of 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.