word_delete_paragraphs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Delete paragraphs by paraId' and does not mention the destructive nature's implications, whether track_changes affects reversibility, what happens to paragraph IDs, or any response/return value. The obvious 'delete' implies mutation but no further transparency.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, achieving maximum brevity. There is zero waste, making it appropriately minimal for the information it conveys.

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?

Given the destructive nature and lack of annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain usage context, alternative tools, track_changes behavior, or the result of the operation. The schema covers parameters well, but the tool's overall behavioral context is absent, making it insufficient for confident 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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including the meaning of para_ids, file_path, and track_changes. The description's 'by paraId' merely echoes the schema's para_ids property and adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already defines.

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 'Delete paragraphs by paraId' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (paragraphs) with the selection method (paraId). It is unambiguous about the operation but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like word_edit_paragraphs or word_delete_table_paragraphs, relying on the tool name to disambiguate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as word_edit_paragraphs or word_delete_table_paragraphs. It neither offers context nor exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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