convert_markdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core action (creates a new .docx from Markdown), dual input modes (text or file path), and optional template application. It does not disclose edge behaviors such as what happens when both markdown and markdown_path are supplied, overwrite behavior for existing files, or what the function returns on success.

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?

Three short clauses, each carrying a distinct piece of information: core conversion, supported elements, and optional template. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence with zero filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters (including a deeply nested theme object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and supported features but omits integration-level context: how theme input relates to save_theme, how conflicting inputs are resolved, and what the success/error return looks like. It is minimally viable but has meaningful gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters and the nested theme object. The description adds modest value by confirming which markdown constructs are supported (relevant to the markdown param) and that a template can be applied (relevant to theme/theme_path), but it does not go beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair: converting Markdown text or .md files into a professionally formatted Word (.docx) document, and enumerates supported content types (headings, paragraphs, lists, tables, code blocks, quotes). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like save_theme and list_themes, which are about theme management rather than document conversion.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you have Markdown content and want a Word output, optionally with a corporate template. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over create_document, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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