Write DOCX styles

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds behavioral details: the union semantics and 'incoming styles win on name conflict'. This exceeds what annotations provide, giving the agent critical conflict resolution 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states purpose, second states prerequisite, third gives input guidance. No redundancy, front-loaded with the most critical information.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters (one nested object), no output schema, and clear sibling relationships, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, input structure, conflict resolution, and references relevant sibling tools. No gaps remain.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description further adds context: 'Pass a StyleProfile dict with paragraph_styles and optional section from get_styles_from_docx batches', which reinforces the expected input structure and source.

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 verb 'union' and resource 'paragraph style definitions onto an existing .docx file'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the prerequisite (file must exist, call write_contents_to_docx first) and mentions get_styles_from_docx for input, making the tool's unique role evident.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: after write_contents_to_docx has created the file. Also indicates using styles from get_styles_from_docx batches, guiding the agent on proper sequencing and data sources. No explicit when-not, but the context is clear enough.

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