set_widow_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It describes the action but omits important details such as the need for a valid paragraph ID, side effects, error behavior, or whether the document must be in an editable state. The description is minimal and lacks transparency for safe invocation.

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: 3 lines of plain text plus a compact Args list. It front-loads the purpose immediately and uses clear, structured formatting. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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's simplicity (boolean toggle, one ID parameter), the description provides the core function. However, it omits return value details (despite a known output schema), error conditions, and required document state (e.g., document must be open). For a direct toggle tool, basic completeness is achieved but not fully.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage (only titles). The description adds brief but meaningful semantics for both parameters: para_id is 'paraId of the target paragraph' and enabled clarifies that True enables, False disables. This compensates partially for the schema gap, but lacks format or source guidance for para_id.

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 action ('Enable widow/orphan control') and target ('this paragraph'). It covers both enabling and disabling via the 'enabled' parameter. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like set_keep_lines_together, the specificity of widow/orphan control makes the purpose sufficiently clear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_keep_lines_together, set_keep_with_next). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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