Set document page setup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds critical context: 'A direct change, not a tracked suggestion', unit conventions ('72 pt = 1 inch'), and that orientation 'swaps the page dimensions'. This goes beyond the schema, though it doesn't mention error handling or permissions.

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 and well-structured: three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose (scope, units/presets, orientation/behavior). No filler or redundant content; every sentence earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete for a 9-parameter tool. It covers the core purpose, scope, unit system, preset options, orientation effect, and mutation semantics, making it self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke.

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?

The schema already documents all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining pageSize presets and explicit dimensions, margin units in points, orientation semantics, and tab defaulting behavior, enriching the parameter understanding.

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 a specific action ('Set document-level page setup') and scope ('for a doc (or tab)'), while explicitly distinguishing from the sibling tool set_style ('which set_style can’t reach'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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?

It provides a clear context for when to use this tool by referencing 'the File > Page setup controls' and directly contrasting it with set_style. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it, but the exclusion of the alternative is strongly implied.

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