set_cell_alignment_docx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the accepted alignment values, but says nothing about required permissions, whether omitted row/col means 'entire table' or 'no-op', or whether existing alignment is overwritten.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and then the value options. No wasted words, though brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter context.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage across 6 params, the definition leaves too much unresolved—particularly whether null row/col targets the whole table.

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% for all 6 parameters. The description usefully documents the allowed values for horizontal and vertical (which the schema leaves as bare strings), but leaves row, col, file_path, and table_index semantics—especially the meaning of null row/col—entirely undocumented.

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+resource ('set cell text alignment') and enumerates the horizontal and vertical value options. It is distinguishable from table-level siblings by 'sel' (cell), though it does not explicitly contrast with set_table_alignment_docx.

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 versus set_table_alignment_docx or the other cell-formatting siblings. The 'and/or' phrasing hints that either axis may be set, but the agent must infer when and in what combination.

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