add_footer

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify whether adding a footer overwrites an existing one, behavior for invalid section_index, or any side effects like altering document structure.

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 concise (two sentences plus argument list) and well-structured. It clearly separates the action, arguments, and return value without extraneous text.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (three parameters, no annotations) and the presence of a simple output schema (success/error), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and arguments but lacks details on edge cases, prerequisites, or behavior with multiple sections.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It lists the three parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Footer text content' for text, 'Text alignment - left, center, right' for alignment), adding value over the bare schema. However, the explanations are minimal and could be more precise.

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 'Add a footer to the document section,' specifying the verb (add) and resource (footer) with context (document section). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_header or add_zoned_footer, which could cause ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_zoned_footer or remove_footer. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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