docx_preflight_patchset

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

With no annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: writing to a temporary copy, validating, removing output unless keep_output is true, and default backend. This is fairly transparent, though details on validation scope and error handling are missing.

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?

Two sentences with minimal waste; 'Write-temp.' is slightly cryptic but still efficient. The description is front-loaded with key action and outcome.

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 complexity (4 params, no output schema) and absence of parameter descriptions, the tool description is incomplete. It does not explain what validation entails or how to use the engine parameter, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The description mentions only keep_output implicitly and does not explain docx_path, patchset, or engine parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving agents without guidance on parameter usage.

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 specifies a dry-run operation on a patchset, using a temporary copy and validation, which clearly states the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool docx_dry_run_patchset, leaving ambiguity about unique functionality.

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 like docx_dry_run_patchset or docx_apply_patchset. The description implies use before applying, but lacks direct statements on when not to use or preferred contexts.

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