format_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lacks details on side effects (overwriting existing formatting), scope (global vs selection), and return behavior. For a complex tool with 11 parameters, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words, but could be slightly more descriptive (e.g., specifying 'all instances' explicitly). Concise and well-structured.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain behavior, error conditions, or return value. Not complete for a complex tool.

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 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description lists formatting options but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; marginal value from listing types.

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?

Description clearly states the tool applies character formatting (bold, italic, underline, etc.) to all runs matching search text. It uses specific verbs and resource (formatting text runs) and distinguishes from siblings like set_paragraph_formats (paragraph-level) and replace_texts (replacement).

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?

Description implies usage for formatting specific text occurrences but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., highlight_text), but no exclusions are mentioned.

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