fill_paragraph_by_index

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: replacement of all text, preservation of style and first run formatting. However, it omits details like error handling for invalid indices or the effect of the optional document_handle parameter.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a purpose: the first describes the tool's action and side effects, the second provides a critical usage hint. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description effectively covers the core functionality with an output schema assumed. It lacks mention of the optional document_handle and does not address edge cases like out-of-bounds index, but it suffices for typical use given the task's simplicity.

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?

The description adds meaning to the 'index' parameter ('zero-based index') but does not describe 'text' or 'document_handle.' Given the schema has 0% description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 specifies the action ('Replace all text'), the target ('a paragraph by its zero-based index'), and unique behavior ('preserving the paragraph style and first run's formatting'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_paragraph' and provides a prerequisite step.

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 instructs users to 'Use get_all_paragraphs first to find the index,' guiding tool invocation. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the instruction implies a clear prerequisite, and the context of sibling tools suggests alternatives exist.

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