r7_docx_hyperlink

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does real work: insert writes an external relationship deduplicated by URL plus a Hyperlink-styled run, re-text keeps the relationship and run formatting, and list returns text and target URL. It stops short of stating permission requirements, in-place vs copy semantics, or 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?

Two front-loaded sentences: the four verbs lead, then per-action behavior follows. Dense and largely waste-free, though the second sentence is long and could be split for clarity.

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?

For a 16-parameter mutation/read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully summarizes what 'list' returns and how writes behave, compensating for the missing output schema. It does not touch several formatting parameters (bold, italic, alignment) that only the schema covers.

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 88%, so the schema already documents url, text, index, style, paragraphIndex, etc. The description adds behavioral meaning for the actions but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource pairing (read/insert/re-text/remove DOCX hyperlinks) and enumerates all four modes, which no sibling tool (r7_docx_formatting, r7_edit, r7_insert) covers. An agent can immediately tell this is the hyperlink-specific tool rather than a general text or formatting operation.

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 four actions are listed and partly explained, implying when each applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no naming of alternative tools (e.g., when to prefer r7_edit or r7_insert over this). Usage is inferred from the action enum rather than stated.

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