format_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Format a specific range of text') without mentioning whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to existing formatting. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how formatting changes are applied, what errors might occur, or provide any context about the 10 parameters. For a text formatting tool with this level of complexity, the description should provide much more guidance.

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?

With 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'filename', 'paragraph_index', formatting options like 'bold' or 'color', or other parameters mean or how they should be used. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Format') and target ('a specific range of text within a paragraph'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from other formatting-related siblings like 'format_table' or 'format_table_cell_text', which slightly reduces its effectiveness for sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'format_table', 'add_heading', 'create_custom_style'), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites for using this text formatting tool.

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