download_word_template

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is already partly covered. The description nonetheless adds real behavior: DOCX ZIP validation ('bounded checks'), exclusive creation of output_path (implying failure if the file exists), and a Base64 fallback when no path is given. It does not say what the ZIP checks reject or what errors surface, so it is useful but partial.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the output-path behavior is stated up front. It is dense to the point of terseness ('bounded DOCX ZIP checks' is compressed jargon), but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to explain the two return shapes (file at output_path vs Base64). Still missing for a 4-parameter tool with low schema coverage: the meaning of scope, the id's source, and failure behavior when the exclusive create collides.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does for output_path by explaining both the exclusive-create behavior and the Base64 alternative when it is omitted. However, it says nothing about the scope enum (organization vs personal) or what id must reference, leaving half the required surface to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Download a CRM Word template'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_word_templates, change_word_template, and download_note_attachment. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource noun is distinctive enough for an agent to pick it out.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call list_word_templates first to obtain the id, nor when to prefer a file download over the Base64 return path. Usage is only inferable from the resource name.

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