set_character_position

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or error conditions. It lacks transparency about the mutation nature or any constraints.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose followed by three lines for args. It is front-loaded and every sentence is relevant.

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 description adequately explains the parameters but omits details about the output schema and potential error cases. Given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete, though slightly lacking in edge-case guidance.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: para_id as paragraph ID, run_idx as zero-based index, and position_pt as offset in points with positive/negative meaning. This adds value beyond the schema titles.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set vertical character position (raised/lowered) for a specific run.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_run_color or set_run_font.

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 or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or disambiguation from other run formatting tools.

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