set_keep_lines_together

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the effect. It does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or behavior when the paragraph cannot be kept together (e.g., page break inevitability).

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: one-line purpose followed by clear parameter explanations in docstring style. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (boolean parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior. However, it lacks mention of error handling for invalid para_id or prerequisites.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It clearly explains para_id as 'paraId of the target paragraph' and enabled as 'True to enable, False to remove it.' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema titles.

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 'Keep all lines of this paragraph on the same page,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_keep_with_next and set_widow_control that manage related but different paragraph properties.

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 guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as set_keep_with_next or set_widow_control. The description lacks prerequisites, context, or exclusion scenarios.

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