wps_word_set_table_borders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying the exact line thicknesses for the three_line style (2.25pt top/bottom, 0.5pt column line) and noting that vertical lines are removed. However, it does not disclose the behavior for grid style (no thickness given), what happens if the table_index is invalid, or whether the operation is reversible. The description partially compensates for missing annotations but leaves gaps.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences in Chinese. The first sentence states the purpose and enumerates the style options with details. The second sentence provides usage timing (call after table creation). Every word serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, simple enum, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what each style does, when to invoke it (after table creation). It is missing details on the grid style's exact appearance, error conditions, or reversibility. However, for a straightforward border-setting operation, the provided information is largely sufficient for correct usage, earning a 4 rather than a 5 due to the minor gap on grid style specifics.

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 significant meaning beyond the schema: for the 'style' parameter, it explains the three_line style in detail (thicknesses, no vertical lines) and clarifies that grid means regular grid lines. The schema only says '边框样式，默认 grid'. For 'table_index', the description does not add new information but references the existing schema description. The extra detail on style values justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 that the tool sets table border styles, naming two specific styles ('three_line' for thesis tables and 'grid' for regular grid). It provides distinctive details about the three_line style's thicknesses and absence of vertical lines, which differentiates it from any other border-related tool among siblings. The verb '设置' (set) plus resource '表格边框样式' (table border style) is specific and 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 explicitly advises to call this tool after creating the table ('建表后调用'), giving a clear timing instruction. It implies using it to transform default full borders into a three-line or grid style. While there are no alternative border tools among siblings to exclude, the provided usage context is clear and practical, though it does not explicitly mention 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.