r7_docx_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that inserting creates the media part, relationship, and content type, that aspect ratio is preserved with a single dimension, and that existing images and relationships are never touched (a non-destructive guarantee). It omits permission/auth context and the return shape for list mode.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, with the behavioral guarantees packed efficiently afterward. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never explains what the list mode returns or the format of inserted results. For a 12-parameter tool the insert path is well covered, but the list path's behavior and return are left unspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all 12 parameters, and the schema already states for widthCm that height derives from aspect ratio. The description's aspect-ratio note largely restates that, so it adds little beyond structured fields; baseline 3 is correct.

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 specific verbs and resource: insert a PNG/JPEG/GIF into a DOCX, or list the images in it. This clearly distinguishes it from formatting, section, and table siblings without needing their schemas.

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 dual 'insert or list' framing gives implied usage and the action enum reinforces it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g. use r7_docx_formatting for styling). Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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