write_part

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

The description mentions validation and warns of corruption, but lacks details such as error handling (e.g., rollback on failure), permissions required, or whether the operation is destructive. Without annotations, more behavioral disclosure is needed.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. It could be slightly more efficient by integrating the warning, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers key aspects (validation, corruption risk), but misses context like prerequisites (document open) and success/failure indicators. The output schema likely covers return values, but gaps remain for safe usage.

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 two parameters (part_path, xml) with no descriptions. The tool description does not explain them further, leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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 action: 'Replace a DOCX part with new XML' and mentions a key aspect, validation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_part and other manipulation tools.

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 includes a warning about document corruption, implying cautious use, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus safer alternatives like higher-level document manipulation functions.

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