docx.save

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 does not explain what happens if both 'path' and 'returnBase64' are provided, whether existing files are overwritten, or any side effects. It also does not note that the document must be open or that saving might fail if the document hasn't been opened. These are critical behavioral expectations for a save 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, direct sentence that conveys the core action without any redundant wording. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place.

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 supports two distinct modes (save to file vs. return base64) and has no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It omits important details like parameter conflicts (what if both path and returnBase64 are set), file overwriting behavior, and any prerequisites such as an existing document. This leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it doesn't clarify the relationship between 'path' and 'returnBase64' or explain that 'docId' is required. The interaction between parameters remains ambiguous, which the schema also does not resolve.

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 tool saves a DOCX document to a file or returns base64 ('Save a DOCX document to file or get as base64'). It specifies the verb ('save') and resource ('DOCX document') and distinguishes two output modes. However, it lacks explicit mention of the requirement for an existing document ID (docId), which is implied but not stated.

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 (e.g., an open document), no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools like docx.open or docx.get_text. The description solely states what it does, not when or how to decide between this and other docx operations.

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