docx.validate_structure

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 the high-level purpose but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it can throw errors upon corruption detection, what it returns, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a validation 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, compact sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundant words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, with every word contributing to the meaning.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, so the description must explain what the agent can expect from calling it. It does not mention whether the outcome is a boolean, a report, or an exception, nor does it indicate prerequisites such as the document being open. This leaves the agent uncertain about how to interpret the result and when to call the tool.

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 already describes the sole parameter 'docId' as 'Document ID' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, its format, or its relationship to the tool (e.g., whether the document must be open). Given the schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'Validate' and resource 'document structure' with the expected outcome 'detect corruption'. It is distinct from sibling tools which are operation-focused (open, close, save, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it lacks detail on what constitutes 'structure' and does not explicitly distinguish from any similar validation tool, though none appear present.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites such as whether the document must be open. There is no mention of when validation is appropriate or what conditions should trigger its use, leaving the agent to infer context.

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