docx-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the creation and reference addition actions, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this modifies the document permanently (requires save_document?), permission requirements, error conditions (invalid para_id), or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by implementation details and parameter explanations. No wasted sentences, but could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating parameter semantics earlier. Efficient for its content.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (exists but content unknown), the description covers basic purpose and parameter roles. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should include more behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling). The output schema reduces need to explain return values, but overall completeness is adequate with gaps.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining para_id as 'paraId of the paragraph to attach the footnote to' and text as 'Footnote text content', clarifying their roles. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., para_id structure, text length limits).

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's purpose: 'Add a footnote to a paragraph' with specific actions (creates definition in footnotes.xml, adds superscript reference). It distinguishes from siblings like get_footnotes (reads) or validate_footnotes (checks), but doesn't explicitly contrast with insert_text or add_comment for similar content-adding operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must be open), compare with insert_text for general text addition, or specify when footnotes are appropriate versus comments. The context is implied but not explicit.

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