set_caption

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and parameter meanings; it does not disclose whether the caption is inserted as a separate object, whether existing captions are replaced, or what happens when the operation fails. The parameter details add some context but not enough to clarify the tool's 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 a single purpose sentence followed by a clean, scannable parameter list. Every line adds value, and the most important usage line is front-loaded. There is no redundant or extraneous text.

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 that the output schema exists and the description covers all five parameters with meaningful semantics, the definition is mostly complete for a caption-setting operation. It lacks broader behavioral context such as error conditions or prerequisites beyond doc_id, but the core information an agent needs to invoke the tool is present.

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 0%, and the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: doc_id provenance, side value mapping, width units, gap meaning, and cap_full_size behavior. This goes well beyond the bare input schema and gives an agent the necessary meaning to set values correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set caption on a table or image.' This clearly identifies the tool's core purpose without being a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the caption-setting function is distinct enough among the sibling list.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The doc_id parameter hints that a document must already be open, but there is no explicit context about prerequisites, exclusions, or which sibling tools to prefer instead.

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