resize_table_docx

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether existing widths are overwritten, whether unlisted columns are preserved, what happens if col_widths length mismatches the table, or how the file is persisted. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the two usage modes immediately after; there is no filler. The only slight weakness is that the second clause is param-instructional rather than framing.

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, and the width parameters are covered. But with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description should say more about the mutation's effect on the document and the required identifiers.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the core pairing semantics: col_widths for all columns, col_index + width_inches for a single column, with inches as the unit. It leaves file_path and table_index unexplained, but those are largely self-evident names.

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 and resource ('Mengatur lebar kolom tabel') with the unit of measure (inches), which is exactly what the name promises. It is distinguishable from siblings like add_column_docx or delete_column_docx since the scope is width only, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 specifies two invocation modes ('seluruh kolom via col_widths' vs 'satu kolom via col_index & width_inches'), which is useful operational guidance. However it gives no context on when to prefer this tool, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to table-formatting siblings.

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