Word Format Paragraphs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden; it does well on property semantics ('keep_with_next ties a heading or caption to what follows', 'widow_control switches widow and orphan control on', spacing in points). But it never states what happens to omitted/null properties (presumably unchanged), whether changes are reversible, or which document parts are affected — material gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in one sentence, followed by a compact property glossary and a return-value note. Every sentence carries information; the middle sentence is dense but not padded.

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?

Moderate complexity (7 params, mutation, no annotations) with an output schema present, so return-value explanation is not strictly needed. Still missing the document-targeting requirement (`path` vs. active document) and matching semantics for `contains` (case sensitivity, all matches vs. first), which an agent needs before invoking.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains five of seven params with real meaning: the three boolean layout flags and the units of space_before/space_after. Remaining gaps are `path` (unexplained — presumably target document vs. active doc) and the null-handling convention for optional params.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Set layout properties on every paragraph containing a string.' The selection-by-substring scope is explicit, and no sibling tool (status, open, save, page_count, headings, outline, export) touches paragraph layout, so the tool is unambiguously distinct.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it applies when formatting paragraphs matched by text. There is no statement of when NOT to use it (e.g., tables, headers/footers, styles-level formatting) and no mention of the prerequisite that a document must be open or supplied via path.

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