apply_paragraph_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool applies formatting, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the output contains. The description adds some context about targeting methods but misses critical behavioral information for a mutation tool.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of targeting methods. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains targeting methods well but omits details on formatting parameters, error conditions, and behavioral expectations. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 low (15%), but the description compensates well by explaining the semantics of targeting parameters: it clarifies that 'start_index' and 'end_index' define a range, 'text_to_find' styles the containing paragraph via text search, and 'index_within_paragraph' uses an index. This adds meaningful context beyond the sparse schema descriptions, though it doesn't cover formatting parameters like 'alignment' or 'named_style_type'.

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's purpose: 'Apply paragraph-level formatting (alignment, spacing, headings, etc.)'. It specifies the verb ('apply') and resource ('paragraph-level formatting') with concrete examples. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_text_style' or 'format_matching_text', which likely handle different formatting scopes.

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 description provides implied usage guidance by explaining three methods to target paragraphs (range, text search, index), which helps understand when to use specific parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'apply_text_style' or 'bulk_update_google_doc', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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