safe-docx

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to establish the write nature. It adds value by specifying the _bk_* id lookup mechanism and dual file format support. However, it omits the warning behavior mentioned in the schema for style_source_id fallback and doesn't explain the mutation scope.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no filler words. Information density is high relative to length. However, given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, low schema coverage, destructive operation), this conciseness comes at the cost of necessary detail, preventing a 5.

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?

Inadequate for a destructive tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. The required 'instruction' parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description fails to explain what constitutes a valid _bk_* id, what the 'new_string' parameter expects (rich text? plain text?), or how the document targeting works.

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?

With only 43% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the '_bk_* id' concept for the anchor parameter and implying the position enum (before/after). However, it leaves critical required parameters—'instruction' and 'new_string'—completely unexplained, and doesn't clarify the file selection logic between file_path and google_doc_id.

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?

Clearly states the action (Insert), target resource (paragraph), and positioning mechanism (before/after anchor by _bk_* id). Mentions supported formats (DOCX/Google Docs) which helps distinguish from file-type-specific siblings. Falls short of 5 by not explicitly differentiating from replace_text or explaining what _bk_* id refers to.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus replace_text, add_comment, or other insertion-related siblings. Fails to clarify the mutual exclusivity between file_path and google_doc_id parameters, leaving the agent to guess which to use.

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