apply_character_style

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses auto-backup behavior with prev/anchor slots in .ks4w-backups, clarifies that backup=False skips rotation only, mentions atomic validated save, and states that documents open in Word are refused. These are exactly the side-effect and safety details an agent needs.

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: three sentences front-load the action, then the alternative, then the key side effects. Every clause carries distinct useful information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 no annotations and 5 parameters with zero schema descriptions, the description covers the core operation, matching semantics, a relevant alternative, backup behavior, save behavior, and a critical lock condition. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required here.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'find' as the searched text, 'style' as a named character style, and 'occurrence' as the match number; backup semantics are also explained. 'file_path' is not explicitly described, though its name makes it self-evident.

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 ('Apply'), a specific resource ('named character style'), and a precise target ('text range (occurrence-th match of find)'). It also differentiates itself from format_text by noting that direct formatting without a style should use that sibling tool.

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?

It gives a clear alternative: use format_text for direct formatting without a style. It does not explicitly contrast with apply_style or list exhaustive exclusions, but the character-style scope and mention of the alternative are enough to guide basic selection.

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