make_table_of_contents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Generate table of contents' but does not explain observable behavior such as whether the TOC is inserted into the document, where it is placed, whether it modifies existing content, or what side effects occur. The doc_id note is mildly useful but insufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a short argument list. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema fields. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices explanatory depth.

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, the description omits essential context for an agent: how the TOC is created, where it appears, whether it replaces an existing TOC, and what conditions must hold. The large sibling tool set and lack of annotations raise the need for more contextual detail than this description provides.

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 names both parameters and adds context beyond the schema: doc_id is 'Document ID from open_document' and action_params is 'Optional HTableOfContents parameter overrides.' However, 'HTableOfContents parameter overrides' is vague and does not enumerate or explain the allowed overrides, leaving the agent to guess the parameter structure.

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 clear verb-object pair: 'Generate table of contents.' The resource is unambiguous and no sibling tool shares this exact purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives, but its unique naming and clear action make the purpose understandable.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites beyond doc_id coming from open_document, nor does it indicate cases where this tool should not be used. This is a gap for an agent navigating a large sibling list.

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