update_paragraph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that empty strings leave text/style unchanged, which is helpful. However, it does not mention return values, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid para_id), permissions required, or whether the operation is reversible. More could be added.

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 with two sentences plus a clear argument list. Every part is necessary and there is 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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers the essential behavior for a straightforward update operation. However, it does not mention what happens if both text and style are empty (no-op), or how to handle invalid para_id. Given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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 explains each parameter: para_id is the identifier, text and style are new content with empty string meaning no change. This adds value beyond the schema's property names and defaults.

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 (update) and resource (paragraph), and specifies what can be updated (text and/or style). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like insert_paragraph or delete_paragraph by focusing on modification of an existing paragraph.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidelines. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer usage context, but there is no proactive guidance on selecting this tool over others.

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