Removes a paragraph and its paragraph mark from an open Word document using a zero-based index, with an optional document ID.
Delete one paragraph (text and paragraph mark) from the document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | Zero-based paragraph index. | |
| documentId | No | Target document ID from list_documents. Optional when only one document is connected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive mutation. It usefully discloses that both the paragraph text and paragraph mark are deleted, but it does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, confirmation behavior, or effects on paragraph indexes. This is a meaningful gap for a deletion tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and scope. The brevity is appropriate for this simple 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?
The tool is simple, with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the core action adequately. However, for a destructive operation with no annotations, it omits important context about side effects and reversibility. It is minimally complete but not fully self-sufficient.
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 100%, so the schema already explains the required zero-based index and optional documentId. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb and resource: delete one paragraph from the document. It also clarifies that both the text and paragraph mark are removed, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that read, insert, or format paragraphs. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the purpose is clear.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_paragraph_text or insert_paragraph. It also does not state prerequisites, such as whether the document must be saved or whether deletion can be undone. The usage is only implied by the tool name and action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.