set_footer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the auto-backup rotation mechanism, the effect of backup=False, atomic validated saving, and refusal to modify documents open in Word. This goes well beyond the tool name and schema.

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?

Three tight sentences convey purpose, options, and safety behavior with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds information.

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?

The description covers critical behavioral context and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, given 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the lack of guidance on ref_type and alignment leaves a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 explain the parameters, but it only clarifies backup and include_page_number. file_path and text are name-implied, while section, ref_type, and alignment remain semantically opaque, especially ref_type, which has no enum or further explanation.

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 action and resource: 'Set a section's footer text', and it calls out the optional page-number field. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling set_header and add_page_numbers by naming footer and page-number behavior.

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 intended use is implied by 'Set a section's footer text', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as set_header, add_page_numbers, or get_headers_footers. An agent is left to infer when this tool is preferred over those siblings.

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