ass_set_wrap_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies mutation and mentions a 'previous' return field, but does not state permission requirements, reversibility, document-state requirements, or other side effects.

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 compact, front-loads the action, and structures arguments and return values clearly with no wasted text.

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 low-complexity setter, the description covers both parameters and the return shape adequately, and an output schema exists. However, with no annotations, it lacks key behavioral context about mutation safety, permissions, and usage alternatives.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by mapping numeric style codes and noting that names are accepted. It also explains that doc_id=None uses the current document, though it does not enumerate the accepted style name strings.

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 and resource: 'Set WrapStyle'. The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this global setting setter from sibling style or script-info tools, so it falls short of the top score.

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 explains arguments but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ass_set_script_info or ass_wrap_range. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Set'.

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