Reposition images inside DOCX documents to correct alignment or layout problems.
Update image position
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.image_update_position"
}
}| 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'update image position' without explaining side effects, required state (e.g., a previously selected image), or potential destructive nature. The agent is left without any understanding of what happens when invoked.
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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is so under-specified that it reads as a fragment rather than a helpful tool description. It does not front-load any actionable information and provides no structure to guide the agent.
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?
Given the tool's simple signature (no params, no output schema), the description is still grossly incomplete. It does not clarify how the tool identifies which image to update, what coordinate system is used, or whether it requires an active document. The description is insufficient for an agent to attempt invocation reliably.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for parameter semantics is 3, but the description fails to add any value. It doesn't explain how the position is specified (e.g., via code, coordinates, or an existing selection), leaving the agent without a way to use the tool correctly.
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 ('Update') and a resource ('image position'), but it's extremely vague. It doesn't specify which image, what kind of position (absolute, relative), or how the position is determined. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like docx.image_add or docx.images_list, offering no unique scope or context.
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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, selection requirements, or typical use cases. The description gives no context about when updating an image position is appropriate or how it differs from other image-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.