safe-docx

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

Annotations already declare this as destructive and not read-only. The description adds that the operation targets 'existing' footnotes and implies it only modifies text (not formatting), but fails to disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if note_id is invalid) or whether changes are immediately persisted to disk.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It immediately communicates the core purpose without preamble or unnecessary verbosity.

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?

While the schema and annotations cover basic safety and input requirements, the description lacks important behavioral context for a destructive operation: it does not specify error responses for non-existent IDs, clarify interaction with tracked changes, or indicate whether the file needs saving afterward.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all three parameters (file_path, note_id, new_text). The description aligns with this but adds no additional semantic value regarding parameter formats, valid ID ranges, or text encoding requirements beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('Update') and target resource ('text content of an existing footnote'). The word 'existing' helps distinguish this tool from the sibling 'add_footnote', though it does not explicitly name alternative tools like 'replace_text' for general text updates.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., 'add_footnote' or 'delete_footnote'), nor does it mention prerequisites such as whether the file must be open or if the footnote ID must exist beforehand.

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