clear_docx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the destructive scope (all text and tables removed, result is an empty document), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, whether images/headers/sections/styles survive, or whether the file is overwritten in place — notable gaps for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and its scope with no filler. Length is appropriate, though it errs toward under-specification rather than compression.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive, unannotated tool the description is too thin. The central ambiguity — what is preserved (images, headers/footers, tables' styling) and whether the original file is overwritten — is unaddressed, and the sole parameter is unexplained.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions file_path. Path format, whether it must already exist, and relative-vs-absolute semantics are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb and scope: it removes ALL text and tables, turning the file into an empty document. 'Seluruh isi' distinguishes it implicitly from the partial deletion siblings (delete_table_docx, delete_row_docx, delete_column_docx), though it never names them or draws the contrast explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives for partial clearing. With many delete_* siblings available, an agent gets no help deciding between a full wipe and targeted deletion.

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