word_format_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., overwriting existing formatting), whether it modifies the file in place, error behavior for invalid para_id, or any other operational details. As a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

Despite a rich schema, the tool complexity (nested edits array, no annotations, no output schema) demands more descriptive context. The description does not explain batch behavior, whether formatting is additive or replaces existing, or what happens when para_id is not found. It falls short of providing a complete operational picture.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds little beyond listing the formatting types already present in the schema. It does not provide additional syntax, relationships, or edge-case details, making it consistent with the baseline of 3.

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 ('Apply'), the resource ('run-level formatting... to paragraphs'), and the targeting mechanism ('by paraId'). It explicitly lists the formatting types (bold/italic/underline/font/size/color), distinguishing it from paragraph-level formatting tools like word_set_paragraph_formats.

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 when to use this tool through the phrase 'run-level formatting', indicating character-level styling rather than paragraph-level. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so guidance is largely implicit.

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