docs_insert_page_break

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

With no annotations, the description should carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not explain the meaning of the 'index' parameter, potential side effects, error conditions, or reversibility. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words, making it highly concise. It front-loads the action and resource effectively, earning its place.

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 tool requires two parameters with no schema descriptions, and the description fails to explain the critical 'index' parameter. There is no context on how the page break is inserted relative to the document content. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter semantics, making the description below the minimum viable quality.

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 does not compensate by explaining either parameter. 'document_id' is a common pattern, but 'index' is completely ambiguous—it could be a character position, paragraph index, or something else. The description adds no value in disambiguating the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('page break in a Google Doc'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling insert tools like docs_insert_text, docs_insert_table, and docs_insert_bullets. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 a page break versus alternatives such as docs_insert_text or docs_format_text. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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