Create a new Word document (.docx) at a specified file path, with an optional title heading for immediate structure.
Create a new Word document (.docx).
Args: path: Absolute file path for the new document title: Optional title heading to add
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| title | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says a new .docx is created and an optional title can be added; it does not disclose overwrite behavior, directory creation, heading level/styling, or return value. This is a thin behavioral profile for a file-creating mutation.
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 short and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose followed by compact parameter definitions. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 two parameters are adequately covered for a simple tool, but the lack of behavioral disclosure about overwrite behavior, return value, or document structure leaves clear gaps. It is minimally viable but not fully specified.
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%, but the description compensates by defining path as an 'absolute file path' and title as an 'optional title heading to add.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema field names, even if heading-level details are omitted.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Word document (.docx).' The word 'new' distinguishes this from sibling tools like read_word_document and add_word_heading, which operate on existing documents.
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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. One must infer from sibling names that add_word_* tools add content to an existing document and read_word_document reads one, but the description never states this or mentions when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.