set_table_border_adv

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core behavior (setting border style) and clarifies the outer_only behavior, but it does not mention whether existing borders are overwritten, whether the document must already be open, or any side effects. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args block is a clean list where each line adds one piece of parameter information without padding or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 straightforward table-border mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers all parameters and the operation's scope. It lacks alternative routing and deeper caveats, but for invoking the tool correctly, an agent has enough information about what to pass and what the tool does.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters, and it does. It provides units for border_width (pt), format for border_color (hex), enumerates allowed border_style values, and explains outer_only. Each parameter receives meaningful semantic detail beyond its raw schema definition.

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 action: 'Set border style for an entire table.' It names a specific verb and resource, and the 'entire table' scope distinguishes it from cell-level alternatives like set_table_cell_style_adv and page-level tools like set_page_border.

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 phrase 'for an entire table' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when the user wants table-wide borders. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is informative enough to guide selection among the many table-related siblings.

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