Add Styled Paragraph to Document

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It says 'appends' (a mutation) and mentions RTL/kashida support, but it omits file prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), side effects (modifies file in place), and return values, leaving the agent uncertain about runtime behavior.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('Appends a styled paragraph') and includes only relevant details. No wasted words.

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?

Despite its clarity, this 13-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations would benefit from additional context about return behavior, file handling, or error cases. The description covers the main purpose but leaves operational gaps that an agent must infer.

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%—every parameter has a description. The tool description adds little semantic value beyond listing a few style features (font, size, RTL) that map to schema properties. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action: 'Appends a styled Arabic or English paragraph to a Word document' and lists key formatting features (font, size, RTL, kashida, line spacing). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_heading_to_document and add_table_to_document.

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 makes clear it is for adding styled paragraphs to Word documents, and sibling tool names imply alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for other content types.

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