add_page_numbers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses auto-backup behavior, the backup=False rotation behavior, atomic validated saving, and refusal when the document is open in Word. This goes well beyond a bare action statement, though it does not mention what happens to existing page numbers or fields.

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, then adds safety and behavioral details. The backup sentence is dense but efficient. Some jargon like 'prev/anchor slots in .ks4w-backups' could be clearer, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with eight parameters, no annotations, and zero parameter-description coverage, this description is not complete enough. It supplies useful behavioral context but omits parameter semantics and usage alternatives, so an agent would still need to infer or probe the meaning of position, section, start_at, prefix, and alignment.

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 description must compensate. It only clarifies x_of_y (renders 'Page N of M') and partially backup (skips rotation only). The other six parameters — position, section, start_at, prefix, alignment, and file_path — receive no semantic explanation, leaving an agent to guess valid values and interactions.

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 a specific action ('Add page numbers (PAGE field) to the header or footer') and a distinguishing behavior ('x_of_y renders Page N of M'). It is unambiguous about the resource, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like set_page_number_format or set_header/set_footer to draw a contrast.

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 such as set_page_number_format, set_header, or set_footer. The note about refusing documents open in Word is a constraint, not usage direction. The intended context is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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