GenOffice docx delete blocks

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

With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well: it discloses the byte-preserving roundtrip behavior (deleted blocks spliced out, remaining blocks keep original bytes), notes the source is never modified ('never modified' in schema, writes a NEW file), and indicates default output naming. This is meaningful safety-critical context for a mutation-like delete 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?

Three sentences of zero waste. The first sentence states purpose and mechanism, the second gives the indexing source, the third flags the new-file behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy or 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?

For a delete tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and clear indexing source referencing, the description is largely complete. It explains the mechanism, source relationship, and file-writing behavior. Minor gap: it doesn't describe what the output/return value looks like after deletion (e.g., whether it returns the new path or a count of deleted blocks), though with no output schema defined this is a small omission rather than a critical one.

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 fully documents all three parameters (path, indexes, outPath). The description adds value by clarifying the indexes semantics (0-based visible order from genoffice_docx_blocks) which the schema only partially hints at ('from genoffice_docx_blocks'). The outPath default naming is also reinforced. Since the schema already covers the parameters well, a baseline 3 is appropriate with modest added meaning.

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 clearly states the verb (delete), the resource (top-level blocks/paragraphs/headings from a .docx), and the key mechanism (byte-preserving roundtrip). It distinguishes from siblings like genoffice_docx_patch (patching) and genoffice_docx_create (creation), and specifically references genoffice_docx_blocks as the source of indexes, making its role in the family unambiguous.

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 explicitly states that indexes come from genoffice_docx_blocks (0-based visible order), which is the key prerequisite. It clarifies that the source file is never modified and that a new file is written. However, it doesn't explicitly enumerate when NOT to use this tool versus genoffice_docx_patch or mention any restrictions (e.g., cannot delete specific paragraphs vs whole blocks), so it stops short of a full when/when-not explanation.

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