docx.sdt_put

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

With no annotations supplied, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Set SDT content' with no mention of side effects, required state (e.g., document must be open), error behavior, or reversibility. An agent is left completely uninformed about the consequences of invoking this mutation.

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 extremely short (one phrase), which is technically concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being nearly useless. It does not front-load any crucial information beyond the bare action. The brevity is not effective because it omits essential context.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description provides no context about SDT concepts, expected XML fragment format, or any operational requirements. It is entirely inadequate for an agent to correctly use this tool without external knowledge.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (docId, tagOrAlias, xmlFragment), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, which is acceptable per the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 states a verb ('Set') and a resource ('SDT content'), which is slightly above a tautology since it clarifies the action, but it is extremely vague. It does not mention the document or the tag/alias, nor does it distinguish from sibling docx.sdt_get beyond the obvious get/set polarity. An agent would still need to guess what SDT content means in practice.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as an open document, or when one might prefer this over other document editing tools. The description offers zero context for selection.

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