assemble_front_matter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses insertion at START, page-break and section-break behavior, default page numbering, conditional refusal, backup rotation semantics, atomic validated save, and the Word-open refusal. This goes well beyond a simple operation summary.

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 long but information-dense and front-loaded: the core action and key placement behavior appear in the first line, and the spec example is a necessary structural reference. No sentence is filler; each adds a distinct behavioral or parameter 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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return-value documentation), the description still reports what the tool returns and which numbering applies to which sections. It also covers safety behaviors (backup, atomic save, refusal conditions), so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 and does: it gives a complete example spec structure with section kinds, fields, and page_numbering settings, explains title-page line centering and abstract heading styling, and clarifies backup=False semantics. The 'force' flag is mentioned even though it is absent from the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Assemble long-document front matter in one call', and immediately distinguishes itself from piecemeal sibling tools by stating the requested sequence is inserted at the START with existing content becoming the body. This makes the tool's role unmistakable.

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?

It clearly communicates when to use the tool: to assemble front matter in a single call, and it states refusal conditions (existing leading TOC or lowerRoman section, documents open in Word) unless force is true. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for fine-grained control when a full assembly is not needed.

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