setup_chapter_headers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that existing header content is replaced and reported, watermarks are preserved, exact field codes are written, backups are rotated in .ks4w-backups, saves are atomic and validated, and the tool refuses documents open in Word.

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 dense but well structured: core mechanism first, then option semantics, then side effects and safety behavior. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 7-parameter document mutation with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the mechanism, replacement behavior, reporting, backup rotation, atomic validated save, and open-file refusal. The only minor omission is alignment semantics, which is outweighed by the breadth and depth of the rest.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining level, include_number, scope ('auto' vs explicit section indices), first_page_blank, and backup semantics. Alignment is not explained, but most parameters receive meaningful operational detail beyond the raw 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 states a specific operation ('Put the current chapter title in the running header') and the exact mechanism (STYLEREF referencing the Heading style of level). It is clearly distinguishable from generic header tools like set_header and from validation tools like validate_chapter_headers.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: any time chapter titles should appear in running headers, using the standard STYLEREF mechanism and avoiding per-chapter section breaks. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so exclusion guidance is missing but implied.

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