apply_table_style

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that missing style definitions are injected, that auto-backup uses .ks4w-backups slots, that backup=False only skips rotation, and that saves are atomic and validated. It also surfaces the refusal of documents open in Word, a critical failure condition.

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?

Three dense sentences cover purpose, style values, backup behavior, save guarantees, and a refusal condition without filler. The main verb and allowed styles are front-loaded, and every clause 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?

The description is behaviorally rich and return values are covered by the output schema, but it is not fully complete because several input parameters are semantically unexplained and no alternative-selection guidance is provided. Still, the core workflow and safety-critical behaviors are clearly conveyed.

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 prose must compensate, but it only clarifies the style values and the backup flag. file_path, table_index, banded_rows, and first_row_header get no semantic explanation, such as indexing basis or header-row behavior, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Apply a named table style') and enumerates the exact accepted values (TableGrid, PlainTable, BandedTable) with parenthetical meanings. The table-style scope distinguishes it from generic siblings like apply_style or format_cells.

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 gives clear context for the intended operation and notes a hard precondition: it refuses documents open in Word. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as format_cells, set_cells, or apply_style, so the agent must infer the right choice from the 'table style' framing.

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