fill_template

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

The description discloses the data structure for tags and the remove_empty behavior, but without annotations, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., document mutation, persistence), return value, or permissions. The presence of an output schema offsets some gaps, but behavioral info is moderate.

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 concise, using a single sentence for purpose and a structured Args section. Every sentence is meaningful, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the core functionality and parameter effects, but it omits operational context such as document state requirements (must be open), potential errors (missing tags, type mismatches), and what the tool returns. While an output schema exists, the description does not refer to it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining 'data' as a mapping of tag names to values and clarifying the use of list[str] for repeating sections. The remove_empty parameter's effect is also described. This goes beyond the bare schema titles.

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 it fills SDT content controls from a data dictionary, specifying that keys match w:tag values. This provides a specific verb and resource, differentiating it from sibling tools like get_content_controls or set_content_control_value.

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 as a batch fill operation but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like set_content_control_value or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided.

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