set_section_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it is unusually rich: it promises auto-backup into .ks4w-backups, explains backup=False semantics, describes an atomic validated save, and discloses refusal of Word-open documents. It also says every response includes the full section state, so an agent knows what to expect. No annotation contradiction exists.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the core action, then add read-mode usage, backup semantics, and the file-lock refusal. There is no filler and no redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 output schema covers return value structure, and the description covers the operation, read mode, backup, and lock refusal. However, because there are no per-parameter descriptions and the parameters include an opaque margins object and a section index, the definition is not fully self-sufficient for a correct first invocation.

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?

The description names page size, orientation, and margins, which loosely map to page_width_pt, page_height_pt, orientation, and margins_pt, but it never explains allowed orientation values, the expected keys or units of the margins_pt object, or section indexing. With schema description coverage at 0%, this gap is material and not fully compensated.

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 page size, orientation, and margins for one section.' This clearly distinguishes it from document-wide setters such as set_document_properties and read-only section tools like list_sections. The 'one section' scope is explicit.

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 states a concrete usage pattern: 'call with no change parameters to read the current values,' and flags a hard constraint ('Refuses documents open in Word'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of 5.

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