apply_style

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses auto-creation of Heading1-9, auto-backup behavior with the prev/anchor slots, that backup=False only skips rotation, atomic validated save, and refusal of documents open in Word. This is strong, specific, and non-obvious behavior.

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 dense but compact: main behavior, disambiguation from siblings, and safety semantics are all covered in three sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and 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?

Given the output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers the core operation, sibling routing, backup behavior, save semantics, and a key failure condition (Word-open refusals). For a batch mutation tool with no annotations, this is remarkably complete.

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 does clarify style ('by id or name'), indices ('a batch of paragraphs'), and backup semantics ('backup=False skips rotation only'). However, file_path is left completely implicit, and indices are not specified in terms of zero-based indexing or ordering.

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 precise action ('Apply a paragraph style') and resource ('to a batch of paragraphs'), with the effect ('changing their full look'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_paragraph_format and change_heading_level by naming what those tools do instead.

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 explicitly names alternatives and the conditions for using them: 'To give a paragraph an outline level WITHOUT changing its appearance use set_paragraph_format's outline_level; to promote/demote existing built-in headings use change_heading_level.' This gives clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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