add_page_break

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so admirably. It reveals auto-backup behavior with specific slot locations, explains that backup=False only skips rotation, mentions atomic validated saves, and warns that documents open in Word will be refused. This is far beyond what the schema conveys.

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 highly compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by necessary behavior and caveats. Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler or repeated schema content.

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 an output schema exists and no annotations are present, the description covers the essential invocation context well: what to insert, where to insert it, how indexing works, backup behavior, save semantics, and a critical refusal condition. An agent has enough information to correctly call this tool and anticipate side effects.

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 input schema has no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds essential meaning by explaining that after_index is 0-based and applies to body paragraphs, and it clarifies the non-obvious backup=false nuance. file_path remains only implicitly understood from its name, but the key parameters receive meaningful elaboration.

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 a page break'), a specific target ('after body paragraph after_index'), and the indexing scheme ('0-based'). This clearly differentiates it from related tools like add_section_break or insert_paragraphs without needing to open the schema.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a page break is needed after a body paragraph, identified by a 0-based index. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as add_section_break, nor does it provide any 'use instead' guidance.

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