set_table_cell_alignment

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'set' implying mutation, but does not mention side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or idempotency. The tool's behavior is opaque.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It uses a single, clear sentence but could include parameter hints or usage notes without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (likely void or success status). It also fails to provide context for the 6 parameters, especially the required indices and optional alignment values, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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 mentions 'horizontal/vertical alignment' but does not specify allowed values (e.g., 'left', 'center', 'right' for horizontal) or explain indices. Parameters doc_id, table_index, row_index, col_index remain unexplained.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: setting table cell horizontal/vertical alignment. The verb 'set' and resource 'table cell alignment' are explicit, and the name distinguishes it from siblings like set_table_alignment_all and format_table_cell_text.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusion cases. With many sibling tools for table formatting, the agent lacks decision criteria.

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