Update or replace content inside structured data tags (SDT) in DOCX documents, enabling precise modification of mapped content regions.
Set SDT content
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.sdt_put"
}
}| 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, but it only states 'Set SDT content' without details on side effects, permissions, or whether it requires the document to be open. The mutating nature is implied, but the description gives no hint of potential destructive consequences or prerequisites.
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—'Set SDT content'—which is concise but not structured in a way that front-loads useful context. It lacks any additional sentences to elaborate on usage, prerequisites, or side effects. It is minimal but not optimized for agent comprehension.
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 is a write operation with no annotations, output schema, or parameters, the description carries a heavy burden to explain context. It fails to mention what an SDT is, what happens to existing content, or whether any prerequisites apply. The description is severely under-specified for an agent to use it correctly.
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 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but since there are no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing missing in terms of parameter documentation.
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 action ('Set') and the resource ('SDT content'), which is a specific verb-object pairing. It distinguishes from the sibling `docx.sdt_get` by indicating it performs a set operation rather than a get, though it does not elaborate on the 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. It does not mention that the document must be open, nor does it explain prerequisites or typical use cases. The usage context is only implied by the generic verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.