docx-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it inserts text with Word track-changes markup that appears as green underlined insertions, and mentions that the author appears in Word's review pane. This covers the key behavioral traits for a text insertion tool with revision tracking.

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 perfectly structured and concise: one sentence states the purpose and behavioral effect, followed by a cleanly formatted parameter section. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics well. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. Minor gaps include lack of explicit usage context versus siblings and no mention of error conditions.

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 fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters: 'para_id: paraId of the target paragraph', 'text: Text to insert', 'position: Where to insert — "start", "end", or a substring to insert after', and 'author: Author name for the revision (shown in Word's review pane)'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Insert text with Word track-changes markup (appears as a green underlined insertion in Word).' This is specific (verb 'insert' + resource 'text'), distinguishes it from siblings like 'delete_text' or 'add_comment', and provides unique context about Word track-changes behavior.

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 context through the Word track-changes mention and parameter explanations, suggesting this is for editing Word documents with revision tracking. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_comment' or 'delete_text', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open document).

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