word_create_document

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description should disclose what gets destroyed (e.g., that an existing file at path is replaced and that overwrite must be set). It says nothing about overwrite behavior, file clobbering, or permissions, leaving the most important behavioral risk undocumented.

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 that leads with the verb and resource, then signals scope. It is dense but every clause earns its place by enumerating supported content; slightly list-heavy but no filler.

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 7-parameter, destructive, no-output-schema creation tool, the description covers content but omits the destination/overwrite semantics and the blocks-vs-sections choice that the schema only hints at. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it safely.

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?

With only 43% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description must compensate; it does partially by naming the block types and source-backed citation/bibliography capability, which maps to blocks/sources. However, path, title, author, overwrite, sections layout options, images, hyperlinks, and footnotes are left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource ('Create a DOCX') and enumerates the content the tool can produce (sections, headings, paragraphs, lists, tables, TOC, citations, bibliography), which clearly separates it from word_append_paragraph and word_inspect_document. It does not name the sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for word_create_document versus word_append_paragraph, word_native_batch, or the various template/presentation creation siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites like a writable path or working-directory context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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