Word Update Fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation ('refresh') but never states whether the document is modified in place, whether it must be saved afterward for changes to persist, whether an open document is required, or what happens to fields that cannot be resolved.

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?

A single tight sentence with the effect front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though that brevity is partly the source of the missing detail rather than a virtue in itself.

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, but for an unannotated mutation tool with two undocumented parameters, the definition leaves too much unknown about document state requirements and persistence of the change.

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 both parameters. The mention of 'tables of contents' loosely hints at the 'toc' flag, but its default (true) and the meaning of disabling it are unstated, and the 'path' parameter is not explained at all — nothing says whether null means the active document.

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?

Names a specific verb-plus-resource action ('refresh fields and tables of contents') with a stated effect (page numbers become current). It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like word_headings or word_outline, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites such as needing an open document, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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