set_table_alignment_all

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 states the action ('Set') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a mutation, what permissions are required, if changes are reversible, or how errors are handled. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral context, and output expectations, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional inference or trial-and-error.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about parameters like 'filename', 'table_index', 'horizontal', or 'vertical', failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain what these parameters mean or how they should be used.

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 ('Set text alignment') and target ('for all cells in a table'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_table_cell_alignment' by specifying 'all cells' versus individual cells. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource (e.g., document or file) beyond the implied context from parameters.

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 like 'set_table_cell_alignment' or 'format_table'. The description implies bulk alignment but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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