docs_set_alignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that alignment is set on a text range, but fails to mention important behavioral traits such as whether this overrides existing alignment, the result of the operation, or any permissions needed. A mutation tool with zero annotation coverage should state these side effects.

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 sentence plus a list of alignment values. Every word earns its place without unnecessary elaboration. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and a schema with no descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits crucial context such as how indices are interpreted (character offsets), the effect on overlapping paragraphs, and when this tool should be used instead of docs_set_paragraph_style. The output schema exists, but the description still leaves the input semantics incomplete.

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 the description must compensate. It explains the 'alignment' parameter by listing acceptable values, which adds value. However, it provides no guidance for the three required parameters (document_id, start_index, end_index), leaving their meaning and format undefined. This is a significant gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 tool's function: 'Set paragraph alignment for a text range.' It specifies the resource (paragraph alignment) and the action (set), and lists valid alignment values (START, CENTER, END, JUSTIFIED). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like docs_set_paragraph_style, the focus on alignment makes its purpose clear.

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 implied by the name and description – it is for setting paragraph alignment. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over docs_set_paragraph_style or docs_format_text, nor any exclusion criteria. The description does not address prerequisites or document type requirements.

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