set_table_borders_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 implies a destructive mutation of the document's table borders but says nothing about permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, how the target table is located, or that calling it rewrites the file on disk.

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 the customization options, with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity partly reflects the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 no explanation, but for an 11-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage the description is far too thin. It omits how sides are toggled, how the target table is identified, and what happens to unspecified sides.

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% across 11 parameters, and the description only clarifies three concepts (color as HEX or 'auto', size as thickness, val as style). The eight per-side booleans (top/left/right/bottom/inside_h/inside_v), file_path, and table_index receive no explanation anywhere, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 ('Mengatur border tabel') and scopes it to a per-side custom border, which separates it from siblings like set_table_style_docx or set_cell_shading_docx. It also names the configurable attributes (color, size, style), but does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearest sibling.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent how this differs in practice from set_table_style_docx or set_cell_shading_docx, nor that a file_path and table_index must already exist before calling.

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