word_set_section

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

The description thoroughly explains behavior: orientation swaps dimensions, page_size options are listed, and specific error codes (ERR_INVALID_PARAMS, ERR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, ERR_UNSUPPORTED_FMT) are provided. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively.

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 well-structured with sections (Args, Returns, Behavior, Raises) and is appropriately sized. No wasted sentences, though the error handling details could be slightly more concise. Overall efficient.

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?

The description is thorough, covering all parameters, behavior, and errors. However, it does not specify behavior for an out-of-bounds section_index (e.g., if the index doesn't exist). This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 by adding meaning to all 5 parameters: path (existing .docx), orientation (valid values, case-insensitive, error on others), page_size (named sizes), section_index (zero-based, default 0), folder (optional base folder). This fully explains the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Configure a section's orientation and page size.' It uses a specific verb ('Configure') and resource ('section's orientation and page size'), making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like word_add_paragraph or word_format_run.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling context implies it's for modifying existing document sections, there are no direct comparisons or exclusion criteria. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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