set_section_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: sending 0 or empty strings leaves that property unchanged, which is useful. However, it does not mention if the tool is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing settings), requires specific permissions, or has side effects on other sections. The mutation nature is implied but not fully detailed.

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 extremely concise, with one sentence for the purpose and a brief clarification on defaults. It is front-loaded with the tool's action and resource, and every word is necessary. No redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits how to specify the section (para_id vs. other methods), what the output schema returns, and any required context like document handle. The agent may be unable to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It groups parameters into categories (page size: width/height; orientation; margins) and explains default value semantics. However, it does not explain the purpose of 'para_id' or 'document_handle', which are critical for identifying the target section and document. Partial value added.

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 that the tool modifies section properties including page size, orientation, and margins. It provides a specific verb (Modify) and resource (section properties). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like set_page_size, set_page_margins, or set_page_orientation, which could cause confusion about when to use this combined tool versus individual ones.

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 includes a helpful hint that '0/empty = unchanged,' guiding the agent on how to leave properties unmodified. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of its siblings, such as suggesting it for bulk updates or noting alternatives for single-property changes. No prerequisites or context for usage are provided.

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