insert_page_break

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 behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Insert a page break') but does not mention whether this is a destructive operation, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., shifting content), or details about error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 that there is an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema coverage for parameters, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool with no behavioral context (e.g., safety, permissions, effects), it lacks completeness for confident agent use, though the structured data mitigates some gaps.

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 100%, with both parameters ('document_id' and 'index') fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not clarify the index format further or explain document_id constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 action ('Insert a page break') and the target ('at the specified index'), with the verb 'insert' being specific and the resource 'page break' distinct from siblings like 'insert_section_break' or 'insert_horizontal_rule'. It precisely defines what the tool does without redundancy.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'insert_section_break' or 'insert_horizontal_rule' for different document formatting needs). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as requiring an existing document, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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