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 mentions the action ('Reply to an existing comment') and outcome ('creates a threaded reply'), but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's a mutation (implied by 'creates'), error conditions (e.g., invalid parent_id), or response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the args into the main text, but the structure is effective.

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 (3 parameters, mutation action), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, side effects) and usage guidelines. With output schema present, it doesn't need to explain returns, but other 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter: 'parent_id: ID of the comment to reply to', 'text: Reply text', and 'author: Author name.' This clarifies semantics beyond the schema's basic types (integer, string). However, it doesn't cover constraints (e.g., text length) or the default for 'author' (Claude), which is in the schema but not mentioned.

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: 'Reply to an existing comment (creates a threaded reply).' It specifies the verb ('Reply to'), resource ('an existing comment'), and outcome ('creates a threaded reply'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_comment' (which likely adds a new comment rather than replying). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_comments'), though the action is distinct enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open document or existing comment), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'add_comment' (for new comments) or 'get_comments' (for reading). Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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