char_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the four operations and their argument shapes, but says nothing about what reset actually clears, whether highlight is additive or replacing, permission needs, or side effects. For a mutation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded clauses: the resource definition first, then the per-action signatures. No filler, and the most routing-relevant information (action names and args) is compact and scannable.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested CharProps object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the operations but leaves the props vocabulary open-ended ('…') and omits return/effect semantics. Adequate but not complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 71%, and the description adds meaningful value by mapping each action to its required parameters, which the schema alone does not express for a discriminated action enum. It does not elaborate on CharProps contents, but the action-parameter mapping is the key missing semantics and is supplied.

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?

Names the resource precisely (character appearance: font, size, color, bold, underline) and implies a clear contrast with the sibling para_format. The action signatures (set/highlight/reset/copy) reinforce what the tool operates on, though it never explicitly states the character-level vs paragraph-level distinction.

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 action signatures act as an implicit routing guide by showing which parameters each action takes (set→range+props, highlight→range+color?, reset→range, copy→from+to). However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over para_format or style, nor any stated prerequisites.

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