add_section_break

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: auto-backup to .ks4w-backups with rotation control (backup=False skips rotation only), atomic validated save, and refusal to operate on documents open in Word. This goes beyond typical descriptions, though it does not mention potential side effects on existing section formatting or error handling.

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 primary action, then moves to backup and atomic-save details, and ends with the key constraint. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 annotations are absent, the description covers the essential operational details: the action, allowed types, backup behavior, and a critical constraint. It does not explain edge cases (e.g., invalid index, invalid break_type), but these are likely handled by the output schema or validation errors. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 explains break_type by listing valid values and clarifies backup rotation behavior, but it does not describe after_index (which is implied by 'after a body paragraph') or file_path (standard for file tools). The description partially bridges the coverage gap but not completely.

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 verb ('Insert'), a resource ('a section break'), and its placement ('after a body paragraph'). It also enumerates the allowed types (nextPage | continuous | evenPage | oddPage), making the purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_page_break, which handles page breaks.

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 it (to insert a section break after a paragraph) and provides a key usage condition ('Refuses documents open in Word'), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as add_page_break, move_section, or set_section_properties. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated with exclusionary guidance.

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