word_add_paragraph

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose where the paragraph is inserted (e.g., at end of document), whether it replaces any existing content, or the effect of the optional style and formatting parameters on the resulting paragraph.

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 extremely brief (four Chinese characters), making it highly concise with no wasted words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, lacking any structuring or contextual framing that might help an agent understand the tool's role.

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 the tool has five parameters, including an enum for styles, and no output schema, the description is too minimal to be fully contextually complete. It only indicates the basic action and resource, omitting any detail about how the paragraph integrates into the document, defaults, or behavior when optional parameters are omitted.

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 all five parameters individually described. The description itself contributes no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '添加正文段落' (Add body paragraph) clearly states the action (add) and the resource (a body paragraph), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like word_add_heading, word_add_table, word_add_list, and word_add_code. The inclusion of '正文' (body text) differentiates it from other paragraph-like additions.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description simply states what the tool does without any indication of when to use it versus alternatives such as word_add_heading or word_add_list, nor does it mention prerequisites like an existing document.

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