docx_apply_patchset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a write operation ('Write.'), uses validation before commit, and defaults to .NET backend. However, it omits side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), error behavior, or whether changes are reversible.

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 two sentences with no fluff, but the first word 'Write.' is abrupt and could be integrated. Overall efficient but could benefit from a clearer structure (e.g., separating input, behavior, output).

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?

Given the tool's complexity (patchset validation, engine choice, audit JSON output) and absence of output schema, the description lacks essential context. It does not define 'constrained PatchSet', what validation entails, or how audit JSON is handled. Sibling tools are similar, making this insufficient.

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 0%, yet the description adds no specific parameter details. It mentions 'constrained PatchSet' and 'new DOCX' but does not explain docx_path, output_path, patchset, or engine parameters, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and constraints.

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 'Apply constrained PatchSet to a new DOCX plus audit JSON', clearly indicating the tool's action (apply) and resource (PatchSet to a new DOCX). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like word_session_apply_patchset, and the word 'constrained' is vague without further explanation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'validation gates final commit' but does not advise on prerequisites or workflow order relative to docx_assess_patchset, docx_preflight_patchset, or docx_dry_run_patchset.

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