Word Comments and Review

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds material context: resolve_revisions and prepare_for_submission are undoable only from the automatic backup, anonymize_for_review writes a private mapping file and flags prose for human checking, and all ops refuse documents open in Word. That is exactly the kind of irreversibility and side-effect disclosure the annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Structure is strong: an overview sentence, sibling routing, a warning about irreversibility, then a consistent 'name(required; opt optional): what it does' legend with shared args factored out. The opening sentence is a dense run-on packing eight operations, which costs a little readability, but no line is filler.

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 multi-op dispatcher with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, alternatives, preconditions, irreversibility, per-op arguments, and a pointer to word_help for the shared file_path/live/backup args and for further ops. Nothing an agent needs in order to pick and invoke an op is missing.

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% and the args object is freeform, so the description carries the real burden — and it does, listing per-op required and optional arguments (action, comment_id, author, mapping_path, accept_revisions, baseline, etc.) with semantics such as leaving author out to sign with the user's own name. This goes well beyond the schema's generic args description.

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 opening sentence names a specific resource (comments and tracked changes in Word documents) and a concrete set of verbs (add, reply, resolve, delete, accept, reject, anonymize, clean). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming word_read for reading and word_edit with track=true for tracked edits, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit routing is given: 'To read comments or tracked changes use word_read; to make tracked edits use word_edit with track=true.' It also states a hard precondition ('refuse a document open in Word') and names live_set_track_changes as the alternative for open documents, covering when-to-use and when-not.

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