set_table_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 behavioral burden. It never states that this mutates and saves the document, whether the change is reversible, what happens for an invalid table_index, or any file-access requirements. Only the allowed alignment values are disclosed, leaving the mutation contract largely unstated.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action comes first and the allowed values are parenthesized at the end. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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 explained. However, for a 3-required-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description leaves the meaning of table_index and the file-handling behavior unaddressed, which is not enough for correct 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% for all three required parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the alignment values ('left', 'center', 'right' – which the schema does not even encode as an enum), but says nothing about file_path or table_index: notably whether the index is 0-based and how tables are ordered.

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: setting the page-level alignment of a table ('Mengatur perataan posisi tabel di halaman dokumen'). The phrase 'posisi tabel di halaman' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling set_cell_alignment_docx, but no sibling is named. One caveat: the description is in Indonesian while the tool names, siblings and schema are English, which adds a small comprehension cost.

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 scope qualifier ('on the document page' vs. cell-level) implies the correct context, so it is not entirely guidance-free. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (file must exist and be a .docx), and no reference to the obvious alternative set_cell_alignment_docx for cell content.

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