set_paragraph_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and does so well. It discloses side effects and safety behavior: automatic backup, backup=False skips rotation, atomic validated save, live serialized edits on open documents, and refusal of tracked-revision paragraphs.

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 and front-loaded, delivering the core operation first and then layering safety and context. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition of schema content or filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, this is very complete: addressing, verification, backup, live behavior, batch alternative, and refusal conditions are all present. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to itemize return values.

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, and it meaningfully explains the non-obvious parameters: the location object forms, the expect safety mechanism, backup behavior, and live editing. file_path and new_text are self-evident, and possible values for 'live' are not fully enumerated, but the core semantics are covered.

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: 'Replace one paragraph's full text,' and clarifies scope by preserving style and base formatting. It also distinguishes itself from the batch sibling by explicitly saying 'For batches, use apply_edits.'

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?

It gives concrete guidance on safely addressing a paragraph when indices shift, instructing the agent to pass 'expect' and verify the returned 'replaced_text.' It also states an explicit alternative for batches: use apply_edits.

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