Style paragraphs

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a write operation with destructive and idempotent traits. The description adds valuable context beyond those hints: only provided fields change, the range styles whole overlapping paragraphs, and a range inside one paragraph affects that entire paragraph. This enriches the agent's mental model without contradicting the annotations.

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 two compact sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the operation and range, packs parameters into a readable parenthetical list, and closes with the two most important behavioral nuances: partial updates and whole-paragraph styling.

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 15-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the subtle semantics: range overlap, single-paragraph handling, partial-field updates, and the at-least-one-field requirement. It doesn't describe return values or index conventions, but the schema and annotations carry much of that burden.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining line_spacing units (100 = single, 200 = double), clarifying that headings feed the document outline, and noting that at least one formatting field is required—a constraint not encoded in the schema's required list.

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 verb and resource: applying paragraph formatting to every paragraph in a range. It enumerates the key formatting fields and explicitly notes this is how headings are made, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from character-level or bullet-focused siblings.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool for paragraph-level formatting and explains range-overlap behavior. However, it never names alternatives such as style_text for character formatting or set_paragraph_bullets, so an agent must infer the exclusion rather than being explicitly told when not to use this tool.

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