edit_table_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 discloses the 0-indexing convention but says nothing about whether existing cell text is overwritten, whether cell formatting is preserved, what permissions or file-access state are required, or any error 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately compact, though the brevity reflects missing information rather than efficient coverage.

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?

With five required parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input side and the mutation behavior remain largely undocumented for what is a state-changing tool.

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 description coverage is 0% across five required parameters, and the description only alludes to the cell coordinates via 'sel tabel tertentu (0-indexed)' and the concept of text. It never clarifies table_index (which table in a multi-table document), file_path semantics, or the exact indexing basis for row/col, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: changing the text content of a particular table cell in a .docx file. It implies scope (a single cell, 0-indexed) which distinguishes it from whole-document tools like replace_text_in_docx, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling such as set_cell_text_direction_docx or merge_cells_docx.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the description's single clause.

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