GenOffice docx watermark

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: header regeneration with watermark paragraph, byte-preserving body roundtrip, new-file output with original untouched. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'adds watermark' statement. It could mention failure modes or return value, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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, each earning its place: the operation, the empty-string removal behavior, and the safety guarantee about not modifying the original. Concise and information-dense without fluff. Slightly more verbose than the strict minimum but all content is essential behavioral guidance.

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 3-parameter watermarking tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation, side effects, removal behavior, and safety. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether GenOffice engine must be running) but that appears to be an operational concern rather than a description gap for this tool's purpose.

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%, with each of the three parameters adequately described in the schema (path as absolute source path, text with empty-string semantics, outPath with default filename pattern). The description adds the byte-preserving and header-regeneration context but doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Set a text watermark on a .docx using the GenOffice engine.' It specifies the operation (watermarking), the target file type (.docx), and distinct behavior (regenerating the header while preserving body bytes). The description distinguishes this from sibling docx tools (extract_text, blocks, patch, create, delete) by describing a specific mutation purpose.

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 states the byte-preserving roundtrip behavior and that empty string removes the watermark, giving clear operational context. It also notes the tool writes a NEW file and never modifies the original, which guides safe usage. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., when to use docx_patch instead).

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