set_run_underline

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious mutation. No annotations exist to provide safety or idempotency hints. There is no mention of side effects, permissions, or interaction with other formatting.

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, using a docstring format with an Args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the Args section could be slightly more compact.

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 tool is a simple setter and has an output schema (not shown), the description suffices for the core action. However, it lacks details on return value, error conditions, or relationship to other run-formattings. It covers the basics but not more.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the purpose of each parameter: para_id, run_idx, and style examples. It clarifies that style accepts values like 'single', 'double', 'dotted', 'none', which is not in the 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'set underline style' on a 'specific run', distinguishing it from other run formatting tools like set_run_color or set_run_font. The Args section reinforces the purpose. However, no explicit differentiation from siblings is given.

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 (e.g., set_run_font for font level, or other underline options). No mention of prerequisites or context where this is appropriate.

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