set_header_footer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states that the tool sets header/footer text and explains the 'where' page-scope codes, but it does not say what null/empty text does, whether existing content is replaced, or how odd/even/first scopes interact.

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 short and front-loaded: a one-line action followed by an efficient Args block. Every line earns its place, and there is no repeated or irrelevant detail.

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?

With four parameters and no annotations, the description gives enough detail to construct a basic call. However, it is not fully complete because edge behavior (null text, clearing, scope interactions) and practical preconditions are left unspecified, leaving the caller to infer important semantics.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the Args block is the only parameter documentation and it compensates well: doc_id is tied to open_document, type lists the allowed values, where explains the numeric page-scope mapping, and text is identified as the content. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 first sentence states a specific operation, 'Set header or footer text', and the Args block clarifies the resource (doc_id) and the target (header/footer). It is clear enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby tools like set_page_number or set_watermark.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the hint that doc_id comes from open_document. The description implies the tool is for header/footer editing but does not state when a caller should pick it over related formatting commands.

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