set_formatting

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'tracked-change markup' but omits critical details: whether existing formatting is overwritten, whether the tool is idempotent, what happens if specified text is not found, or if it has side effects (e.g., triggering document save). The word 'apply' implies mutation but without a readOnlyHint, the safety profile is unclear.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. While it efficiently states the core purpose, it fails to include necessary context. The structure is front-loaded but overly sparse for a complex tool.

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 eight parameters, an output schema, and many sibling tools (e.g., 'apply_style_to_range', 'set_run_color'), the description is too brief to guide correct selection and invocation. It does not mention the output schema or how the tool integrates with the document model. The agent is left without enough information to avoid errors.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the tool's description adds no parameter explanations. It does not define 'para_id' (likely a paragraph identifier), 'text' (the content to format), or clarify that 'underline' is a string (not boolean). With eight parameters, the agent must guess their meanings from names alone, risking misuse.

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 specifies the action ('apply character formatting') and the resource ('text with tracked-change markup'). It differentiates from siblings like 'clear_run_formatting' (which removes formatting) and other 'set_run_*' tools (which likely set specific formatting without tracked changes). The verb+resource is specific and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'set_run_font' or 'set_run_color'. It does not specify scenarios where tracked-change markup is required or suggest avoiding this tool for single-parameter changes. This lack of context forces agents to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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