set_page_size

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

The description voluntarily discloses an important side effect: 'the plan is re-placed automatically.' With no annotations provided, this is useful behavioral context, but it does not mention other potential effects or required permissions. For a simple mutation this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence states the operation, the accepted values, and the key automatic behavior with no wasted words. The essential information is 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?

For a simple setter the description covers the core operation and one side effect, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, the unexplained 'page' parameter and absence of any annotation safety hints leave a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives context for the required 'size' parameter by listing the allowed formats, but it never explains the optional 'page' parameter, which is part of the schema and may be significant in multi-sheet documents. Thus it only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and a clear resource ('sheet format'), and it enumerates the supported sizes (A4, A3, A2, A1), so an agent knows what operation is offered. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling sheet-related tools like set_orientation or set_scale, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 intended use is implied: call this when the sheet format needs to be changed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, which the sibling set of sheet-related tools would benefit from.

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