set_line_numbering

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses auto-backup rotation in .ks4w-backups, the meaning of backup=False, atomic validated saving, and refusal when the document is open in Word. It leaves some side effects unspecified, but the most important ones are surfaced.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, then packs caveats into three tight clauses without filler. The telegraphic style costs a little readability but 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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers core behavior and the most safety-relevant details. It is less complete on parameter semantics and alternative selection, though the presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not the gap.

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 adds real semantics for restart (allowed values), remove (clears line numbering), and backup (skips rotation only), but leaves start, count_by, distance_pt, and section largely to inference from their names and defaults.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Set manuscript line numbering') plus the domain context ('journal submissions') and section granularity. It is clear and distinct from sibling page-numbering/formatting tools, though it does not explicitly name a contrasting alternative.

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 when the tool applies (manuscript/section line numbering in journal submissions) and documents the remove=True clearing mode. It does not state explicit exclusions or name alternatives, but the use case is sufficiently scoped.

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