set_paragraph_style

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the default for paragraph_index, 0-based indexing, negative indices, and that tables don't count. However, it does not mention what happens if the style is invalid, whether the operation is destructive, or any permissions needed.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical indexing details. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains paragraph_index well but lacks details on style (e.g., available styles) and what happens on success (void? error?). It is adequate but has gaps in completeness.

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 adds meaning for paragraph_index (default, indexing rules, table exclusion) but does not explain 'style' (valid values, case sensitivity) or 'doc_id'. Partial compensation.

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 clearly states that the tool applies a paragraph style to a paragraph, with examples like 'Heading 1' or 'Title'. It specifies the verb 'apply' and the resource 'paragraph style', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_paragraph_style'.

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 implies usage when an existing paragraph needs a style applied but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Siblings like 'list_styles' could be mentioned for discovering styles, but no guidance is provided on prerequisites or exclusions.

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