Add comments to DOCX documents programmatically. Enhance collaboration by inserting annotations into OOXML files.
Add comment
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "docx.comments_add"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 'Add comment' without any mention of side effects (e.g., modifying a document), required permissions, or potential reversibility. This is a mutation tool, but that fact is not disclosed.
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, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is a fragment that does not earn its place; it repeats the tool name and adds nothing. While it is concise in length, it lacks any meaningful content.
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 is completely inadequate for a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a clear destructive/mutating action. It does not explain what a comment is, how to use the tool, or what the expected outcome is. It is far from complete for an agent to use it effectively.
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 zero properties, so there are no parameters to explain. According to the rule, 0 parameters receive a baseline of 4. The description adds no additional meaning, but since there are no parameters, this is not a deficiency.
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 'Add comment' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'docx.comments_add'. It provides no specific verb-resource detail, no indication of what kind of comment, where it is added, or how it differs from sibling tools like comments_list or comments_delete. This fails to convey the tool's actual function.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when to avoid using it. Sibling tools exist for comment-related operations, but no differentiation is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.