docx-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool creates comments and adds range markers, implying mutation, but lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, whether changes are saved automatically, error conditions (e.g., invalid para_id), or side effects. The mention of 'comments.xml' hints at file structure but doesn't clarify implementation impact.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by implementation details and a clear parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what it does, the second how it works, and the Args section clarifies inputs efficiently without redundancy.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 3 parameters, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers the action and parameters but lacks usage context, error handling, and behavioral transparency. The output schema helps, but gaps remain for safe agent invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all three parameters: para_id identifies the target paragraph, text is the comment content, and author specifies the displayed name with a default hint. This goes beyond the schema's basic titles, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., para_id structure).

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 ('Add a comment anchored to a paragraph') and specifies the resource (a comment in a document). It distinguishes from siblings like 'reply_to_comment' by focusing on creation rather than response, and from 'get_comments' by being a write operation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all relevant siblings like 'insert_text'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open document), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'reply_to_comment' for existing comments or 'insert_text' for adding text without comments.

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