format_text

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses auto-backup behavior, backup=False semantics, atomic validated saves, file vs live Word editing, and locale/language mapping nuances. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what schema alone provides.

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?

Dense but every clause earns its place: formatting keys, targeting logic, sibling routing, backup behavior, and live-editing caveat are all packed into a compact definition. The most important action is front-loaded.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this description provides target resolution, formatting semantics, backup/live behavior, and an alternative tool pointer. An agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly, especially with an output schema present.

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 explains the formatting object's keys in detail, defines the three targeting modes, clarifies occurrence's role, and explains backup=False's meaning. The 'live' parameter is only indirectly touched and file_path is assumed self-evident, but coverage is strong overall.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Apply character formatting to a text range', then enumerates the exact formatting keys it accepts. It also explicitly routes named character styles to apply_character_style, distinguishing it from the closest sibling.

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?

Gives clear selection criteria for targeting text (paragraph_index + find, find alone, whole paragraph) and an explicit alternative for named styles. It does not exhaustively contrast with paragraph-level formatting siblings, but the character-vs-style distinction is clearly conveyed.

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