wps_word_append_paragraph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: atomic append+formatting, no cursor dependency, empty document handling, and page break via \x0c. It lacks details on error handling, undo behavior, or return value, but covers core traits adequately.

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—three sentences without redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose and function, with supporting details following efficiently.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description covers purpose, usage context, and key behavioral traits. It omits return value and error scenarios but is overall sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists formatting options but adds no significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It clarifies that formatting applies to the same paragraph, which is marginally useful.

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 (append), resource (paragraph at end of document), and scope (with formatting in one call). It distinguishes from siblings like wps_word_insert_text (which inserts at cursor) and separate formatting tools.

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 specifies it is 'independent of cursor position' and 'safe for linear typesetting like theses', and that empty documents get a first paragraph. It implicitly differentiates from cursor-dependent tools but does not explicitly name alternatives or state 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.