doc-ops-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 that files are automatically saved to OUTPUT_DIR with auto-generated names, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if OUTPUT_DIR is missing. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none provided).

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and key features (HTML support, automatic formatting). It uses four sentences efficiently, with no redundant information. However, the last sentence about OUTPUT_DIR could be integrated more smoothly, and it's slightly verbose in explaining file saving.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and behavioral details (auto-saving, HTML support). It covers the core functionality but lacks information on return values, error cases, or advanced usage scenarios. For a creation tool with 3 parameters, it's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 parameters. The description adds that content supports HTML and mentions automatic styling/formatting, which aligns with the schema's preserveFormatting parameter. It doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 creates Word documents from content with formatting, specifying it's for creating from scratch and supports HTML. It distinguishes from siblings like convert_document or write_document by emphasizing direct creation without conversion loops. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., convert_markdown_to_docx).

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 for creating Word documents from scratch with HTML content, avoiding conversion loops. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, though the context suggests it's for direct creation rather than conversion tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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