set_keep_with_next

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the basic effect (enable/disable keep-with-next) but does not mention side effects, constraints, or what happens when the paragraph is at a page break. The description is sufficient for a simple toggle but lacks depth on potential interactions.

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 and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a bullet-style Args section. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundant information.

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 simplicity of the tool (two parameters, boolean toggle) and the existence of an output schema (per context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core behavior and parameters, though it could mention error scenarios or what the tool returns.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% schema coverage). The description compensates by explaining both parameters in the Args section: 'para_id' as the target paragraph identifier and 'enabled' as the boolean toggle. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type and title.

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: keeping a paragraph on the same page as the next paragraph. It uses a specific verb ('keep') and resource ('paragraph on same page as next paragraph'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'set_keep_lines_together' and 'set_page_break_before'.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'set_keep_lines_together', 'set_widow_control', or 'set_page_break_before'. It lacks explicit context on when to enable or disable this setting and no mention of prerequisites or contraindications.

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