Criar DOCX

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait: 'Sujeito a aprovação' (subject to approval), which is valuable. But it does not explain how approval is granted (despite an optional confirm_token parameter), whether the operation overwrites existing files, or what it returns after execution.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant content. The first sentence efficiently states the operation and input format; the second adds the critical approval constraint. Both sentences earn their place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description captures the primary purpose and the approval requirement, which are the core elements for an agent to understand. However, for a write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the lack of detail on the approval workflow (especially the role of confirm_token) and on overwrite/return behavior leaves notable gaps that could confuse an agent during execution.

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 descriptions cover path and paragraphs (67% coverage); confirm_token is undocumented in the schema. The description adds meaning by linking paragraphs to the docx-generation goal and hinting at approval, but it does not explicitly clarify confirm_token or path semantics. It provides modest value over the schema without fully compensating for the missing parameter 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 description clearly states the action ('Cria'), the output format ('.docx'), and the input structure ('parágrafos (array de strings)'), making it unambiguous what the tool does. The title 'Criar DOCX' and sibling context (e.g., write_file, write_pdf) reinforce that this is the dedicated docx generator.

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?

The use case is implied by the purpose ('criar um .docx a partir de parágrafos'), so an agent can infer when to invoke it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like write_file for plain text or write_pdf for PDFs, leaving the selection partly to judgment.

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