DocX — Mettre à jour un modèle

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the old version is archived and rollback is possible, adding valuable behavioral context. However, it does not mention any prerequisites or potential side effects beyond the archive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no extraneous words. Each sentence contributes purpose and behavior.

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?

Given sibling tools for create, list, restore, etc., the description covers the update operation with archiving detail. No output schema, but description need not explain return values. Could mention that the template must already exist.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional meaning for parameters beyond what's in the schema (template_id, template_base64, template_name). The mention of archiving is not parameter-specific.

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?

Description clearly states the tool replaces an existing template with a new .docx version, using 'remplace' (replace) and 'modèle existant'. This verb+resource distinction sets it apart from siblings like docx_upload_template (create new) and docx_restore_template_version (revert).

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?

Description implies when to use: to update a template. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides some differentiation. Missing a note like 'for uploading a new template, use docx_upload_template'.

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