set_table_column_width

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('Set') implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to document state, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions rather than being a virtue of conciseness.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters (4 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, usage context, or expected outcomes. The tool modifies document structure yet provides minimal guidance for safe invocation.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'filename', 'table_index', 'col_index', 'width', or 'width_type' mean, their expected formats, or relationships. The description fails to provide any semantic context beyond what's inferable from parameter names.

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') and target resource ('width of a specific table column'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_table_column_widths' (plural) by focusing on a single column, though this distinction could be more explicit.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), compare to sibling tools like 'auto_fit_table_columns' or 'set_table_column_widths' (plural), or specify when this operation is appropriate versus other table formatting tools.

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