word_edit_paragraphs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic replace operation and does not mention whether changes are tracked by default, whether edits are applied in a single pass, what happens if a paraId is not found, or any side effects (e.g., formatting loss). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 that leads with the action and object. There is no redundant or filler content; every word earns its place.

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 tool has 3 parameters (including a nested edits array) and no output schema or annotations. The description is too minimal to convey behavior such as the track_changes default, batch edit semantics, or error handling. It needs more context to be a complete guide for an agent.

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 has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for file_path, edits, and track_changes. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Replace'), identifies the resource ('text of specific paragraphs'), and specifies the selection method ('by paraId'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like word_insert_paragraphs and word_delete_paragraphs, which have different operations.

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 implies the tool is for editing existing paragraphs by their ID, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like word_set_paragraph_formats or word_replace_texts. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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