Append a paragraph to an existing DOCX while preserving its package; optionally apply a style or write to a separate output file.
Append a paragraph to an existing DOCX document while preserving its package.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path or path relative to the server working directory | |
| text | Yes | ||
| style | No | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| outputPath | No | Optional output path. Omit to update the input file in place. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavior note — the DOCX package is preserved — but omits the more consequential detail that in-place modification happens by default unless outputPath is supplied, which matters given destructiveHint=true.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.
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?
For a five-parameter mutating tool with no output schema and 40% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It should clarify what append means (new paragraph at end), how style and overwrite interact with outputPath, and what the agent gets back.
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 only 40%: only path and outputPath carry descriptions. The description adds nothing about text, style, or overwrite, leaving three parameters — including a required one and a defaulted mutation flag — undocumented in both places.
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?
States a specific verb (append) and resource (paragraph) targeted at an existing DOCX document, which implicitly separates it from word_create_document and word_replace_text. However, it does not name or contrast those siblings explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The description never says to use word_create_document for new files or word_replace_text for substitutions, nor does it state prerequisites such as the file needing to already exist as a valid DOCX.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.