edit_docx

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'edit', 'add', 'replace', or 'modify', which already implies mutation, but does not disclose whether the input is overwritten by default, how formatting is affected, or what happens when the file doesn't exist.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the resource and key actions with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a tool whose parameter details live in the schema.

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 schema is rich and covers all parameters, but the description itself provides little high-level context about how operations compose, how replacement works, or the default overwrite behavior. The combination is workable but leaves the agent inferring important behavior from the schema alone.

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 100%, so the schema already documents inputPath, operations, and outputPath. The description's 'add content, replace text' loosely maps to operations but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('edit') and resource ('existing Word document (DOCX)') and lists concrete capabilities: add content, replace text, or modify. This clearly distinguishes it from create_docx and from the PPTX/XLSX edit tools by file type.

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 word 'existing' implies this tool is not for creating new documents, and 'Word document' implies it is for DOCX rather than PPTX/XLSX. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives such as create_docx.

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