Create a Word document at any path, with an optional title and body paragraphs, to serve as the base for footnotes, citations, and bibliography.
Create a new .docx at path with an optional title and body paragraphs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| paragraphs | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that a new .docx is created, but it does not disclose what happens if the file at 'path' already exists, whether parent directories are created, whether existing content is overwritten, or any permissions requirements.
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 with no filler. It covers the core action, the resource type, the destination parameter, and the optional content parameters efficiently.
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 simple creation tool with an output schema and straightforward parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, given no annotations and no usage guidance, it leaves out important contextual behavior around existing files and side effects, which an agent would need to invoke it safely.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds natural-language meaning by mapping 'path' to the destination of the .docx and 'title'/'body paragraphs' to the optional content parameters. However, it does not explain formatting expectations, paragraph semantics, or constraints beyond what the schema already exposes.
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 states a specific action ('Create'), a specific resource ('.docx'), and a location ('path'), which makes the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with footnotes, sources, and citations rather than creating the document itself.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as whether the document must not already exist, and no exclusions. The description tells the agent what the tool does but not when to choose it over related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.