set_text_direction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what the operation affects (selection, current paragraph, whole document), whether it is reversible, or what side effects may occur. The parameter values are listed, but the actual behavior beyond 'set' is not disclosed.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact argument list. Each line adds information, though the landscape line could be more precise. Overall it is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 no annotations and only a minimal description, important context is missing: the scope of the text direction change, prerequisites, and the meaning of the landscape flag. While an output schema exists, the agent still lacks enough detail to invoke this tool safely and correctly in real document workflows.

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 compensate. It adds useful meaning for doc_id ('from open_document') and text_direction (0=horizontal, 1=vertical). However, landscape is only described as 'Landscape mode flag', which is vague and does not clarify acceptable values or its relationship to text_direction.

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 text direction') and the resource being modified, with the horizontal/vertical options spelled out. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like set_text_style or set_paragraph_style, but the operation is specific enough to be understood.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of scope (selection, paragraph, document) or conditions. The only context given is that doc_id comes from open_document, which is helpful but insufficient for routing.

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