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 discloses key behavioral traits: it serializes modified XML parts and repacks into a DOCX archive, indicating a write operation that modifies files. However, it doesn't mention permissions, error handling, or side effects (e.g., overwriting files). The description adds some context but is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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, starting with the core purpose. The two sentences are efficient, and the Args section adds necessary parameter details without redundancy. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). Overall, it's concise and well-organized.

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 tool with no annotations, 1 parameter, and an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, how it works internally, and parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could improve by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., requires an open document) or error cases, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'output_path', but the description explains its purpose: 'Path for the output file. If empty, overwrites the original.' This clarifies default behavior and usage, compensating well for the low schema coverage. With 0 parameters documented in the schema, the baseline is 4, and the description meets this by providing essential details.

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: 'Save all changes back to a .docx file.' It specifies the verb ('Save'), resource ('.docx file'), and scope ('all changes'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'open_document' or 'close_document'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools, such as whether it's the only save operation available.

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 mentioning it saves changes to a .docx file, suggesting it should be used after modifications. It does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if there are other save methods) or any prerequisites, such as requiring an open document. The context is clear but lacks detailed exclusions or comparisons.

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