para_format

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuinely behavioral content — which parameters each action consumes — but it never says what 'reset' reverts to (theme default vs. document default), whether the operation is destructive/reversible, or what permissions or document state are required.

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 compact lines, front-loaded with the domain statement followed by the action signature block — no filler or restatement of the title. The heavy abbreviation and parenthetical ellipsis in the props list cost it the top mark, since brevity shades into under-specification.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is only partly sufficient: the nested 'props' object has no enumerated keys, so the agent must infer the ParaProps fields from the parenthetical list (정렬·여백·줄 간격·탭·테두리). The per-action mapping is helpful, but return behavior and prop key names remain unknown.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above it by supplying per-action parameter bindings the flat schema cannot express (set→range+props, reset→range, copy→from+to). It also flags that 'props' is a ParaProps object accepting numeric or '12pt'/'20mm' lengths and '#RRGGBB' colors.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: paragraph formatting covering alignment, spacing, line spacing, tabs, borders. The Korean gloss '문단 모양' clearly separates it from the sibling char_format, though that distinction is implicit in the wording rather than an explicit contrast. An agent can identify the domain without opening the schema.

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 ('set(range, props); reset(range); copy(from, to)') implicitly tell the agent which mode to pick for which task, which is more than nothing. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (handle, active selection/cursor), and no routing to style/char_format alternatives.

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