safe-docx

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

Adds value beyond annotations by specifying 'deterministic' behavior and 'hard conflicts' detection. However, with readOnlyHint already covering safety, the description fails to disclose what happens when conflicts are detected (error vs. returning conflict details) or what constitutes a 'hard' conflict.

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?

Single, information-dense sentence where every word earns its place: 'Deterministically' (behavioral trait), 'merge multiple sub-agent plans' (core function), 'detect hard conflicts' (validation feature), 'before apply' (workflow position). No redundancy.

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 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is insufficient. It fails to document two boolean parameters or explain the return value (merged plan structure, conflict report format, or boolean success indicator), leaving significant operational 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only implicitly covers the `plans` parameter via 'merge multiple sub-agent plans.' It completely omits the boolean configuration parameters `fail_on_conflict` and `require_shared_base_revision,' which likely control critical behavioral aspects of the merge logic.

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?

Uses specific verb 'merge' with resource 'sub-agent plans' and mentions 'detect hard conflicts.' The phrase 'before apply' distinguishes it from sibling tool `apply_plan` by implying this is a preparatory validation step. Minor deduction for assuming context about what constitutes a 'sub-agent plan.'

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?

Implies temporal ordering with 'before apply,' suggesting use prior to `apply_plan`. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., when to merge vs. apply a single plan directly) and does not mention prerequisites for the `plans` parameter.

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