set_numbering_style

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects, scope, and parameter behavior. It only says it applies to the current paragraph, but there is no mention of whether it replaces existing numbering, how the 'start_number' or 'level' affect output, or any other behavioral implications. The mutation is implied but not detailed.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and substance. It essentially restates the tool name without adding useful details. Under-specification is not the same as good conciseness; the sentence wastes the opportunity to convey essential information.

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 presence of four parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and a complex task (numbering style), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the tool's behavior, parameter semantics, or its relationship to sibling tools, making it nearly impossible for an agent to call correctly without additional context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (level, doc_id, start_number, numbering_type). There is no explanation of what these parameters mean, their defaults, or how they influence the numbering style. The description provides zero value for parameter understanding.

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 clear action ('apply numbering style') and a specific target ('current paragraph'). It is distinct from siblings like set_bullet_style, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate between numbering and bullets. The purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to understand the core operation.

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 like set_bullet_style, insert_auto_number, or set_page_number. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate scenario for applying a numbering style.

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