docx-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the action and constraints (e.g., text must be in a single run), but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, error handling for non-existent text, or rate limits. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by key constraints, and then parameter explanations in a clear 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's complexity (mutation with constraints), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and key constraints, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or permissions, which are important for a mutation tool, preventing a perfect score.

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 explains all three parameters: 'para_id' (paraId of the target paragraph), 'text' (exact text to mark as deleted), and 'author' (author name for the revision), adding meaning beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it does not provide detailed semantics like format examples or edge cases, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 specific action ('Mark text as deleted with Word track-changes markup'), the resource ('text within the paragraph'), and the outcome ('appears as red strikethrough in Word'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'insert_text' or 'search_text' by focusing on deletion markup rather than insertion or searching.

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 implies usage by specifying constraints ('The text must exist within a single run') and the exact text requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'insert_text' for adding text or 'search_text' for finding text. It provides some context but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions.

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