Write DOCX contents

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable specificity: 'Creates a new file if the path does not exist; replaces the document body if it already exists.' This informs the agent about the exact behavior beyond the generic destructive hint.

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 succinct with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, behavioral detail, and usage guidance. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and adequate annotations, the description covers the core functionality and workflow. It does not address error handling or edge cases, but overall is sufficient for the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's additional guidance 'Pass blocks collected from get_contents_from_docx' largely repeats the schema's description for contents, offering minimal new semantic value.

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 tool writes content blocks to a .docx file, with specific verb ('write') and resource ('.docx file'). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing get_contents_from_docx and write_styles_to_docx, establishing a clear workflow.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Pass blocks collected from get_contents_from_docx' and 'Call before write_styles_to_docx when reformatting.' This guides the agent on when to use the tool in relation to siblings, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.

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