word_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it does not mention whether the tool overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, or has size/length limits. The description is minimal, leaving the agent uncertain about side effects like file replacement or editing behavior.

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 sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose and output format. There is no redundant information, no filler, and it front-loads the essential action (create a .docx file). It is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

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 the tool's low complexity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly adequate but lacks clarity on overwrite behavior and return value (e.g., success/failure indication). Without an output schema, some return information would be helpful. It covers the basics but leaves minor 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it simply restates that items contain structured content with headings, paragraphs, and bullets, which is already clear from the enum values in the schema. Baseline score of 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 that the tool creates a .docx file from structured content and lists the supported elements (headings, paragraphs, bullets). The purpose is explicit and different from sibling tools like word_read, ppt_create, or note_set, but does not differentiate itself from other creation tools like ppt_create.

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 generating Word documents from structured data, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ppt_create or note_set, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., file path validity) or situations where this tool would be inappropriate.

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