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 technical behavior (detects and removes specific XML elements) but lacks critical details such as whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, if it affects document structure, or the response format. The description adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and provides essential technical details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the scope and mechanism without redundancy, making it highly 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 (a mutation operation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the what and how but lacks completeness. It does not address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or side effects, which are crucial for a tool that modifies documents. The output schema may help with return values, but the description should do more to compensate for missing annotations.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's action and context, which aligns with the baseline score for zero parameters.

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 ('Remove VML watermarks'), target resource ('from all document headers'), and scope ('e.g., DRAFT'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_text or search_text. It provides precise technical details about the removal mechanism, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the target (document headers with VML watermarks) and the standard pattern for Word watermarks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_text or when not to use it (e.g., for non-VML watermarks). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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