docx_dry_run_patchset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It vaguely suggests non-destructive action ('write-temp', 'dry-run') but does not state whether the tool modifies files, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The backend hint is useful but insufficient.

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 extraneous information. It front-loads the key idea ('write-temp', 'same as preflight') and adds one important detail about backend defaults. Every word earns its place.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings (including 'docx_preflight_patchset'), the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what the dry run produces, how it differs from applying a patchset, or the meaning of 'preflight.' The tool name suggests a dry run, but details are missing.

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 0%, and the description only hints at the 'engine' parameter ('defaults to .NET Open XML backend'). The other parameters ('docx_path', 'patchset', 'keep_output') are not described, leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or 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 mentions 'write-temp' and 'same as preflight', which hints at a dry-run simulation, but it is vague and relies on jargon. It does not explicitly state that the tool applies a patchset without permanent changes, distinguishing it from 'docx_apply_patchset' only implicitly.

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 says 'useful for explicit Codex dry-run stage' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'docx_preflight_patchset' or 'docx_assess_patchset'. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are given.

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