format_numbering

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by disclosing that effective edits emit a native w:pPrChange and that identical requests are no-ops. This tracked-change and idempotency behavior is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then modes, then constraints and behavioral footnote. No filler; every sentence carries distinct, useful information.

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 single-paragraph mutation tool with full annotation coverage and complete schema descriptions, the definition covers purpose, modes, and side effects well. It stops short of describing the return value, which is notable given there is no output schema, but the core call contract is complete.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented, but the description adds genuine value by explaining how the parameters combine (three mutually distinct edit modes) and the semantic result of each. It doesn't add syntax detail beyond the schema, so it stays just above the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Change) and precisely scoped resource (one DOCX body paragraph's direct numbering reference), immediately clarifying it operates on direct w:numPr rather than style-inherited numbering. An agent can distinguish this from generic formatting or numbering-creation tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit parameter-driven modes of use (remove=true, match_paragraph_id, num_id with ilvl) plus clear exclusions: it does not create numbering definitions or modify style-inherited numbering. This tells the agent both when and when-not to reach for this tool.

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