Office Word MCP Server

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 states the action ('Insert a numbered list') but lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the insertion modifies the document structure irreversibly, error handling for invalid inputs, or what happens if the target is not found. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details in a compact list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 of a document mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but misses critical behavioral context (e.g., effects on the document, error scenarios) and output details. This is adequate for minimal understanding but leaves gaps for safe and effective use.

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 lists all parameters (filename, target_text, list_items, position, target_paragraph_index) and provides basic semantics, such as 'before or after' for position and 'list of str' for list_items. With 0% schema description coverage, it compensates well by explaining each parameter's role, though it lacks deeper details like format constraints or default behaviors.

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 specific action ('Insert a numbered list'), the target ('before or after the target paragraph'), and the method ('Specify by text or paragraph index'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_paragraph' or 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text' by focusing on numbered lists and positional targeting.

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 usage through the phrase 'Specify by text or paragraph index,' suggesting when to use text vs. index targeting. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'add_paragraph' or 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text,' and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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