set_run_underline

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses parameter defaults but fails to mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing underline), error conditions, or required permissions. This is minimal disclosure 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 fairly concise with two sentences for the main description and a structured Args block. However, the Args block adds some verbosity, and the overall length could be slightly more efficient. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 has an output schema (as per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers basic behavior and parameters but lacks context on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., run must exist), and what happens if parameters are invalid. It is adequate but not robust.

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 significant value by explaining each parameter: para_id is the paragraph ID, run_idx is zero-based, and style with examples ('single', 'double', 'dotted', 'none') and a default of 'single'. This goes beyond the schema's types and default.

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 'Set underline style on a specific run in a paragraph.' It specifies the verb (set), resource (underline style on a specific run), and context, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_run_color or set_run_font.

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., set_run_strikethrough). It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where underline is appropriate, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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