set_paragraph_formats

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'single open/save cycle' implying efficiency, but it does not disclose whether existing formatting is overwritten or merged, nor does it discuss error handling, permission requirements, or side effects.

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, each carrying essential information: the action and the grouping mechanism. There is no redundancy or extraneous text, making it highly 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally sufficient for a file modification tool. However, it lacks context about file prerequisites (e.g., file must exist, be openable) and what the tool returns upon success or failure, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds no new semantic details about parameters beyond the schema, but it does contextualize the 'groups' structure. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 applies alignment, spacing, and indentation to paragraphs, and introduces the concept of groups with indices. This makes the purpose specific and distinct from siblings like 'edit_paragraphs' or 'format_text' which operate on individual paragraphs or text runs.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify that this should be used for batch formatting or when you need efficiency via a single open/save cycle, nor does it mention when to prefer 'edit_paragraphs' for finer-grained control.

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