add_formatted_paragraph

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 explains the tool's primary action and parameters, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file modification, permissions, idempotency) or error handling. The behavior is adequately described at a high level.

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 concise, with a brief introductory sentence followed by a clean Args list. Each parameter is explained in one line. No redundant information. Could be slightly more streamlined but is effective.

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 an output schema exists, return values are covered. However, the description does not address prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), error conditions, or how the tool interacts with the document (e.g., whether it creates a new paragraph or modifies existing). It is adequate for simple use but lacks depth for complex scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well. It explains each parameter with meaning and examples (e.g., font_name includes 'SimSun' and alternatives, alignment lists options, indent_first_line as character count). This adds significant value beyond the schema's raw type and defaults.

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 it appends a paragraph with specific formatting to a document, using a specific verb '追加' (append) and resource '段落' (paragraph). This distinguishes it from siblings like insert_paragraph_after or replace_paragraph, which have different positioning.

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 for adding a formatted paragraph at the end of a document, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like insert_paragraph_after (which inserts at a specific location) or replace_paragraph. No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided.

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