set_keep_with_next

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the effect (keeping paragraphs together) and how the enabled parameter toggles it, but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or any prerequisites. The basic behavior is clear, but depth is lacking for a mutation tool.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure places the main action first. No extraneous information, which is ideal for quick agent comprehension.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description is not required to detail return values. However, the description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., para_id must reference a valid paragraph) and does not differentiate from set_keep_lines_together beyond the core action. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an agent unfamiliar with document formatting concepts.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the boolean enabled parameter well ('True to enable keep-with-next, False to remove it'), but for para_id it merely restates the schema field name without added context. This partial compensation yields an adequate but not strong score.

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 function: 'Keep this paragraph on the same page as the next paragraph.' It uses a specific verb ('keep') and resource ('paragraph'), and the sibling tools include set_keep_lines_together and set_widow_control, which are distinct page-break controls. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from similar tools.

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 controlling page breaks between paragraphs, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives like set_page_break_before or set_keep_lines_together. No exclusion criteria or context is given, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and description.

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