update_doc_headers_footers

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the update overwrites existing content or appends, whether it creates a header/footer if none exists, or any permission/authentication requirements. The return type is mentioned, but critical side-effect information is missing.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, concise and free of fluff. It communicates the essential information efficiently without being overly verbose.

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 adequately covers the parameters and return value, making it possible for an agent to call the tool. However, it lacks guidance on usage context and behavioral consequences, which are important for a mutation tool with no annotations. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The description compensates for the 0% schema coverage by providing a clear one-line explanation for each parameter, including the allowed values for section_type and header_footer_type. This gives the agent the necessary meaning to invoke the tool correctly, though it could be enriched with examples or edge cases.

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 the tool 'Updates headers or footers in a Google Doc', using a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and easy to understand, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like modify_doc_text or batch_update_doc.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred over other document modification tools, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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