set_columns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses auto-backup into prev/anchor slots in .ks4w-backups, notes that backup=False skips rotation only, promises atomic validated save, and states refusal for documents open in Word. This provides concrete side-effect knowledge beyond the schema.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the backup/refusal details are packed into a compact, information-dense paragraph with no filler. Every clause adds operational value.

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 tool with no annotations, the description covers the main behavior, backup/recovery, validated saving, and the Word-lock precondition. It relies on the output schema for return values and leaves some parameter semantics and alternative routing unstated, but is otherwise strong.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain widths_pt (explicit per-column widths vs equal), separator (draws a line), and backup (False skips rotation only), but count, section, space_pt, and file_path receive no explicit semantics. Partial compensation only.

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 multi-column text layout for a section," and immediately differentiates the scope from table-column operations by mentioning section-level layout, equal widths, widths_pt, and separator lines. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like set_column_widths or insert_columns.

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 scopes usage to section multi-column layout and warns that documents open in Word are refused, which gives some context. However, it never names alternatives or states when set_columns should be preferred over similar section/column tools, so routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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