set_bibliography_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 well. It discloses side effects (auto-backup into .ks4w-backups, atomic validated save), conditional behavior (backup=False skips rotation only), and a refusal condition (documents open in Word). This is unusually transparent for a mutating 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 dense but every element earns its place: the scope, the accepted values, boundary conditions, workflow advice, backup semantics, and safety behavior. The most important fact — what the tool modifies and how — is front-loaded, and the formatting is scannable.

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 mutating citation-formatting tool with no annotations, the description covers scope, alternatives, prerequisites, side effects, persistence behavior, and locking. The output schema handles return-value expectations, and the required parameters are covered by the input schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 parameter descriptions are absent, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for style by enumerating all accepted values, and for backup by explaining rotation behavior when backup=False. file_path is only implied, but its name and the document-focused context make its purpose clear.

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: 'Set the style Word-native CITATION and BIBLIOGRAPHY fields render in', followed by an exhaustive style list. It actively distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that plain-text citations use convert_citation_style and that manager-managed citations are outside its scope.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: run detect_citation_system first on unfamiliar documents, and explains when not to use it — it only affects Word-native fields, while manager citations and plain-text citations have their own paths. This directly prevents misuse and routes the agent to alternatives.

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