Word Open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the side effect of changing the current document, which is useful, but says nothing about failure modes (missing file, unsupported format), what happens to a previously open document, permissions, or whether opening is read-only or editable.

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 wasted words, and it efficiently conveys the core action and state effect. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity contributes to gaps elsewhere rather than being a structural flaw.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a state-changing tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete: it omits error conditions, current-document replacement behavior, and any path validation expectations that an agent would need before invoking it.

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 coverage is 0% for the single required 'path' parameter, so the description should compensate. It does not clarify whether the path is absolute or relative, what file types are accepted, or whether a missing file is created; the parameter name alone carries all meaning.

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 verb and resource ('Open a document') and adds the state change ('make it the current one'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like word_close and word_save, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 versus alternatives such as word_status or word_close, nor any mention of prerequisites like the file existing or the document not already being open. The implied usage is that the caller wants to load a file, but no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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