add_page_break

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

The description notes a return of 'Success message or error', which gives a basic outcome but lacks details on side effects (e.g., cursor position, impact on existing content). Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden, but the simplicity of the action makes this minimally adequate.

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 exceptionally concise: a single clear sentence plus a brief return specification. Every word is informative and front-loaded. Perfect conciseness.

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 zero parameters and a simple action, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks comparison to similar tools (e.g., page break vs. section break) and does not explain the 'Success message' format. There is room to add context for better decision-making.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds context ('current document') that is not in the schema, so it provides meaning beyond the empty schema. For zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'a page break', specifying the context 'to the current document'. It uniquely identifies this tool among siblings without 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_section_break' or 'add_paragraph'. The description does not specify prerequisites (e.g., a document must be open) or when not to use it.

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