docx.numbering_set

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

With no annotations, the description must explain behavioral effects. It only says 'Set numbering' without stating whether it modifies the document in place, what format the XML should follow, or what the return value is. The lack of detail means the agent cannot anticipate side effects or expected outcomes.

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 brief (two words), which is concise but not adequately informative. While it is front-loaded, the lack of essential details makes it under-specified, so the brevity is not a virtue here.

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 of numbering in docx (definitions, formatting, references), the description is entirely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the operation, how to construct the XML, what error conditions exist, or what happens on success. Without this context, the agent cannot reliably use the tool.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for both parameters ('Document ID' and 'XML content'), but these are minimal and uninformative. The tool description adds no further context about the XML structure, allowed values, or the relationship between docId and the numbering operation, leaving the agent with insufficient understanding of how to provide valid input.

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 'Set numbering' provides a verb and a resource, but the resource 'numbering' is ambiguous—it could refer to list numbering, page numbering, or other numbering definitions in a docx context. It does not clearly distinguish this setter from other setters like part_write or replace_text, and fails to specify the scope or effect.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as numbering_get or other setter operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without direction for selecting this tool.

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