word_edit_table_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 action without mentioning side effects, reversibility, permissions, or the track_changes parameter that defaults to true. This is a significant gap 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 communicates the core function immediately. It has no superfluous words or redundant information.

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 a simple structure with 3 parameters fully described in the schema, but the description itself omits important context such as the ability to apply multiple edits in one pass (mentioned in the schema) and the default track_changes behavior. Without an output schema, the description could provide more context about expected outcomes or error handling.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, including para_id and text. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides; it references paraId and text but does not clarify formats, constraints, or usage details. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Replace the text'), the specific resource ('a specific paragraph inside a table cell'), and the identification method ('by paraId'). This distinguishes it from siblings like word_edit_paragraphs (general paragraphs) and word_edit_table_cells (editing entire cell content).

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 usage for editing paragraphs within table cells but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like word_edit_paragraphs or word_edit_table_cells. It does not state exclusions or mention alternative tools, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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