set_table_borders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that borders are set on all six sides and hints at defaults via the input schema but does not mention overwriting behavior or side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core functionality without any extraneous words. Every part is meaningful and directly related to the tool's purpose.

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?

While the tool has an output schema, the description fails to explain the four parameters sufficiently. Given the low schema coverage, the description should provide at least basic parameter semantics, which it does not. This leaves the agent with incomplete information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the four parameters (table_idx, border_style, color, size). The mention of border sides in the description does not compensate for missing parameter details like allowed values or units.

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 it sets borders on all six sides of a table, with a specific verb 'set borders' and resource 'table'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_table_alignment or set_cell_shading by explicitly listing the six border types (top, bottom, left, right, insideH, insideV).

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 implies usage for setting all table borders at once but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks alternatives or context about when setting individual borders via other tools would be more appropriate.

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