docx.part_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation intent ('Write/update') and does not disclose permissions, reversibility, relationship updates, validation, or the effect of overwriting an existing part. This is a significant gap for a raw XML mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes to stating the action and target, making it appropriately concise for what it attempts to convey.

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 raw XML write/update operation with no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% parameter coverage, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain part path semantics, required parameters, document lifecycle (e.g., must be opened), potential for creating new parts, or risks of malformed XML corrupting the document.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only 'xml' described as 'XML content'; 'docId' and 'partPath' are undocumented. The description's phrase 'specific XML part' hints at partPath, but it adds no meaningful detail about how to identify the document or format the part path, so it does not compensate for the schema gaps.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pairing ('Write/update' a 'specific XML part'), clearly indicating the mutation of a raw document part. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like docx.part_read and docx.list_parts, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies use for modifying raw XML parts but offers no guidance on when to choose this over higher-level tools like docx.replace_text or docx.table_edit. It lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or context such as needing the document open, making the usage guidance effectively absent.

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