modify_paragraph_style

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

No annotations are provided, so this sparse description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies an existing style but does not mention whether changes are applied in-place, affect content already using the style, require a certain document context, or what happens if the style does not exist. For a mutation tool, this lack of behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.

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?

One short, grammatically complete sentence that immediately states the operation and target. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters with complete schema descriptions, one required parameter, and no output schema, so the description needn't cover return values. However, because there are no annotations, the description should include behavioral context (e.g., that styleName must reference an existing style, that at least one property should be supplied, and the in-place mutation effect); it does not.

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 100%, and each parameter has a description (e.g., 'Leading (line spacing) in points', 'Font size in points'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already fully documents the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Modify' with resource 'paragraph style' and the qualifier 'existing', which clearly differentiates it from create_paragraph_style and apply_paragraph_style, as well as modify_character_style. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Context is implied by the word 'existing' (i.e., not for creating new styles) and by naming 'paragraph style' (not character/object styles), but no explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance is provided.

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