edit_paragraphs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the file is opened and saved only once and that indices remain stable. However, it does not mention error conditions, permission requirements, or confirmation that edits are saved. The behavioral traits are minimally adequate.

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 two sentences long, both front-loaded with key information: the operation type and a critical behavioral detail (index stability). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context (batch, stability). It does not explain default parameters or order of edits, but given the schema richness, it is largely complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond summarizing the operation. The schema already documents parameters like track_changes and allow_untracked_edit in detail, so the description does not compensate further.

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 replaces text content of multiple paragraphs in one operation, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing batch operation and stable indices, which is unique among sibling tools like edit_table_cells or replace_texts.

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 explains the benefit of batch operation and index stability, implying when to use it (for multiple paragraph replacements). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like insert_paragraphs or delete_paragraphs for altering paragraph count.

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