set_table_borders

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

The description indicates that all six sides are set simultaneously, but does not disclose whether existing borders are overridden, if partial side setting is possible, or any permissions required. With no annotations, the burden is on the description to provide behavioral context, which it fails to do.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it less helpful overall.

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 four parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain defaults, how to target specific sides, or the output behavior. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters (size, color, border_style, table_idx). The agent cannot infer what values are valid for size or border_style, or the format of color. This is a critical gap.

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 borders on all six sides of a table, listing them explicitly (top, bottom, left, right, insideH, insideV). This distinguishes it from siblings like set_paragraph_border or set_cell_shading.

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 such as modify_cell for cell-specific borders, or set_table_style for overall table appearance. The description does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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