docx_backup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation does not modify the original document, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether backups can overwrite previous ones, permission requirements, or any side effects beyond the sidecar creation. The description adds value but is minimal.

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 a single concise sentence, but it is arguably too minimal. It lacks critical information about parameters and output, making it efficient but incomplete. It would benefit from additional structure, such as separate lines for purpose and parameters.

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 absence of output schema and parameter descriptions, the description should compensate by outlining return values (e.g., path to backup file) and parameter details. It does not, leaving the agent uninformed about the backup location or how to specify a custom directory. Sibling tools for restore suggest the backup format matters, but no info is provided.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter (docx_path, backup_dir). The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation, especially since backup_dir's default behavior or format is unclear.

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 tool creates a timestamped backup ('Create timestamped backup') and explicitly notes it does not modify the original DOCX. It also specifies 'Write-sidecar only,' distinguishing it from potential siblings that might modify the original. The verb and resource are specific.

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 implies the tool is for creating backups ('Write-sidecar only') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like docx_restore_backup or docx_rollback. No when-not or explicit context is provided, only a hint of safety ('does not modify original').

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