word_set_page_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool modifies the existing document, whether unspecified settings are preserved, if the file must exist, or any error conditions. 'Set' implies mutation, but the description gives no details on scope or side effects.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, the description is thin. It does not clarify how orientation interacts with width/height settings, whether margins apply to all sections, or the behavior if conflicting values are provided. While the schema documents individual parameters, the overall effect and edge cases remain ambiguous.

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% coverage with each parameter individually described. The description adds only a high-level summary ('page size, orientation, and/or margins') without detailing relationships or precedence, but this is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 tool's action: 'Set page size, orientation, and/or margins for a Word document.' It specifies the resource (Word document) and the fields affected, distinguishing it from the read-only sibling word_get_page_layout.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need to modify page setup. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unmistakable and aligns with the verb 'set', which implies modification rather than reading.

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