list_removeFromParagraph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It doesn't say what happens to numbering, bullets, indentation, or the paragraph style after removal, nor whether the operation is reversible or requires the paragraph to currently be a list.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste, front-loaded on the action. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 no-annotation mutation tool with three undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what indexes address the paragraph, what state the document must be in, or what side effects to expect.

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 only 25% – only document_id is documented, while the three required parameters (pageIndex, frameIndex, paragraphIndex) have no descriptions anywhere. The description's vague 'a paragraph' hints at paragraphIndex but adds no real addressing or format guidance to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb plus resource plus target ('Remove list formatting from a paragraph'), so an agent immediately knows it is the inverse of the sibling list_applyToParagraph. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The inverse relationship with list_applyToParagraph/list_applyToSelection is left for the agent to infer from the verb alone, and no preconditions (e.g. must already be a list) are given.

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