set_page_number_format

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses auto-backup behavior, the precise effect of backup=False, atomic validated saving, and the Word-open refusal. These are substantive side-effect details beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 compact: three sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and backup/locking caveats efficiently appended. There is some dense jargon like 'prev/anchor slots' and 'atomic validated save', but every sentence adds relevant information.

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 covers purpose, format examples, backup behavior, and the Word lock refusal, but it leaves open how this relates to add_page_numbers, whether existing page numbers are overwritten, and what the exact section indexing semantics are. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required, but the zero annotation coverage leaves some gaps.

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 clarifies number_format with concrete examples and hints at start_at via 'decimal restarting at 1', and it explains backup behavior. However, file_path and section semantics remain mostly implicit, and valid number_format values are not exhaustively defined.

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 states a specific verb and resource: setting the page-number format per section. It enumerates concrete format examples (lowerRoman, decimal, upperRoman, letters), which makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from siblings like add_page_numbers or set_section_properties.

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 conveys that this operates per section and includes a useful caveat about refusing documents open in Word, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as add_page_numbers or set_section_properties. There is no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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