docx.save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Save a DOCX document' without mentioning whether it overwrites existing files, what happens if 'path' is omitted, whether it persists to disk or memory, or what the tool returns (e.g., success status, base64 data). This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action. While it is minimal, conciseness is not the issue; the lack of content is addressed under other dimensions.

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 tool that likely performs a side-effect (saving), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return value (despite no output schema), behavior when 'path' is absent, or how 'returnBase64' affects the output. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, an agent cannot predict the tool's behavior with confidence, making the description incomplete.

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?

The schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (path, docId, returnBase64), so the schema already covers semantics. The tool description adds no additional nuance, such as the relationship between path and returnBase64 or the meaning of docId in this context. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Save a DOCX document' clearly states the verb and resource, making the tool's core purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like docx.copy, but no sibling performs the same save action, so confusion is unlikely. However, it omits specifics about the destination or effect (e.g., to a file path, in memory).

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While no direct sibling exists for saving, the description does not mention typical use cases (e.g., after modifications) or any prerequisites (e.g., that the document must be open). An agent must infer the context from the tool's name alone.

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