set_run_strikethrough

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., whether changes are reversible), permissions needed, or impact on document state. Only the action and parameter meanings are described.

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 uses a clear Args section. It could be slightly more compact, but every sentence serves a purpose and the structure is easy to parse.

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 (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. However, it omits error conditions, behavioral details, and any mention of output or side effects, making it minimally adequate.

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%, but the description adds meaningful explanations: 'para_id' is paragraph ID, 'run_idx' is zero-based index, 'double' distinguishes single vs double strikethrough. This adds value beyond the raw schema.

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 verb ('Set'), resource ('strikethrough on a specific run'), and context ('in a paragraph'). It distinguishes itself from sibling run formatting tools like set_run_color or set_run_font by being specific to strikethrough.

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 (e.g., bold, italic, underline). It does not mention any preconditions or when not to use it.

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