set_formatting

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

With no annotations, the description explains key behaviors: splitting runs, using rPrChange for tracked revisions. It provides good insight into the revision tracking mechanism, though it doesn't mention error handling or behavior if text is not found.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by technical detail and a clear args list. It is mostly concise, but the args list could be more compact.

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 absence of annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers behavior and parameters. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it omits details about output or error scenarios.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds detailed meaning for all parameters: para_id (target paragraph), text (exact text), bold/italic/underline/color with examples (underline style, hex color), and author. It compensates fully for missing schema descriptions.

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 it applies character formatting with tracked-change markup. It specifies it finds text within a paragraph, splits the run, and applies formatting as a revision. This is specific and distinguishes from siblings like set_properties or insert_text.

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 implies usage for formatting text with revision tracking but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like insert_text or set_properties. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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