apply_style_to_range

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the action and return format but omits critical details: what happens if paraIds are invalid or the style does not exist, whether the document must be open, if changes are tracked, or if there are side effects on other paragraphs. The return object is explained but not the success/failure semantics.

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 short (one sentence plus structured Args/Returns) and well-structured. Each section has purpose, and there is no redundant information. It could be slightly more compact by omitting the return doc if output schema covers it, but it remains efficient.

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 complexity (2 params, with output schema available), the description covers the basic action and return structure. It lacks preconditions or error scenarios, but for a straightforward apply operation it is minimally adequate. More context on behavior in edge cases would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must define parameters. It does so: para_ids as 'List of paragraph paraIds', style_name_or_id as 'Style name or styleId'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions. However, it does not explain how to obtain paraIds or valid style names, limiting practical guidance.

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 action ('apply a style') and target ('list of paragraphs by their paraIds'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like apply_table_cell_style (table cells) and set_table_style (table style) by specifying paragraphs and paraIds. However, it does not clarify whether the style is a paragraph style or character style, leaving minor ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as update_style, copy_style, or set_table_style. The description does not mention prerequisites, fallbacks, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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