set_run_highlight

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any side effects (e.g., overwriting existing highlights), required permissions, error conditions, or the permanence of changes. The tool modifies a document run but gives no insight into its behavior beyond the basic action.

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 purpose sentence followed by a bulleted argument list. It front-loads the action and stays focused on essential information with no extraneous content. Every sentence earns its place.

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 covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks contextual details such as valid ranges for run_idx, what happens if the paragraph or run doesn't exist, or the full list of accepted color names. Since an output schema exists, return value explanation is not needed, making the description minimally adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'paraId of the target paragraph', 'Zero-based index of the run', and 'Word highlight color name (e.g., "yellow", "green", "cyan", "none")'. The examples for color values add clarity, though an exhaustive list would be more helpful.

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 purpose is clearly stated: 'Set highlight color of a specific run in a paragraph.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_run_color (font color) and clear_run_formatting. The description is unambiguous and directly tells the agent what the tool does.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or situations where this tool is preferred over similar tools like set_run_color or clear_run_formatting. This lack of context forces the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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