set_table_pagination_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, and it does not disclose that this mutates the document file, whether changes are persisted, or any error conditions. It only restates the two option semantics, which belongs under parameter meaning rather than behavior.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource stated first and the two options enumerated after. No filler, though it could be slightly clearer on parameter types.

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% parameter coverage, the description leaves behavioral and one-parameter-type gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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 explains repeat_header_rows (repeat header each page) and cant_split (prevent row splitting), which the bare schema does not. It does not clarify that repeat_header_rows is an integer count or the default behavior of cant_split=true.

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 ('Mengatur opsi cetak/pagination tabel') and names the exact behaviors controlled. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like set_table_style_docx or set_table_borders_docx. No explicit sibling differentiation, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description says what is configured but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. With ~40 sibling tools on tables, the agent gets no help deciding when pagination settings apply versus other table operations.

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