set_run_font

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, error handling (e.g., invalid run index or font name), permission requirements, or confirmation of changes.

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 very concise, using a single sentence for the main action and a list for parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a simple three-parameter tool, the description covers the essential information. The presence of an output schema (per context signals) reduces the need to describe return values. However, missing details like validation behavior or font compatibility keep it from a perfect score.

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, but the description compensates by providing brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'paraId of the target paragraph', 'Font name (e.g., 'Arial', 'Times New Roman')'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's 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 action ('Set the font of a specific run'), specifies the target (paragraph and run by zero-based index), and mentions the font name with examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_run_color or set_run_size by focusing on font selection.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of prerequisites like ensuring the paragraph exists or the run index is valid, nor guidance on preferred font names.

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