wps_word_apply_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'apply style' without revealing whether the operation is destructive, what happens if the style doesn't exist, or any return value. The schema's range parameter is not mentioned in the description, leaving the agent unsure about the modification scope.

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 concise sentence (14 characters) that efficiently conveys the core action. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as mentioning the range parameter.

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 tool with two parameters (one enum, one required string) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits the range scope, does not explain the effect of applying a style (e.g., overwriting existing formatting), and provides no context for deciding between this tool and sibling tools like wps_word_set_font. The description leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on 'style_name' or 'range'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 tool applies a style to target text, giving examples like 'Heading 1'. This distinguishes it from sibling formatting tools (e.g., wps_word_set_font, wps_word_set_alignment) because applying a predefined style is a different operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives or mention the scope (selection vs. all), which is covered by the schema.

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 this tool over sibling formatting tools. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring a selection, or when direct formatting might be preferred. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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