flatten_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly explains the underlying XML operations (w:ins, w:del, w:rPrChange, w:pPrChange) and the result (plain text with no tracked-change metadata). It provides the return type with counts. However, it does not mention irreversibility or potential destructive nature.

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?

Two sentences clearly convey purpose and behavior, followed by return type. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the essential action.

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?

For a parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, how it works at a technical level, and what it returns. No gaps remain.

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?

No parameters are present, so baseline is 4 per rules. Description adds no parameter info because none exist, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. It correctly omits unnecessary detail.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's action: accept all tracked changes and remove revision markup. It specifies the verb ('accept', 'remove') and the resource ('tracked changes', 'revision markup'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like accept_all_changes by including removal of formatting change markup.

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?

Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated. The description does not provide when to use this over similar tools (e.g., accept_all_changes) or when not to use it. It only states what it does, leaving the decision to the agent.

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