format_paragraph_docx

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

With no annotations and no output/behavioral hints, the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether unspecified parameters leave existing formatting untouched, how targeting works (paragraph_index vs row/col/table_index), whether changes are reversible, or what permissions are needed for a mutation tool with 18 parameters.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then groups the capabilities logically, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a broad-format tool.

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 mutation tool with 18 parameters, zero schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too thin: it omits parameter targeting semantics, mutation behavior on unspecified fields, and any output/return expectations, leaving significant gaps an agent would need filled.

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 usefully clarifies units (inches for indentation, pt for spacing, ratio like 1.5/2.0 for line spacing) and names keep_with_next/page_break_before, but it leaves core targeting parameters (paragraph_index, row, col, table_index) and widow_control entirely 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 opens with a clear verb+resource ('Mengatur format paragraf') and enumerates the specific formatting aspects it controls (line spacing, space before/after, indentation, alignment, list, page control). However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling format_text_docx, which could also sound like 'formatting' in a docx context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as format_text_docx or add_styled_paragraph_docx, nor any mention of prerequisites. It describes what can be set but not the conditions under which an agent should select it.

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