Append a paragraph to a DOCX or ODT document and reload it in the editor, so you can add new text to existing Office files without rebuilding them.
Append a paragraph to a docx or odt file and reload it in the editor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two real traits beyond the name: supported formats (docx/odt) and the side effect of reloading the file in the editor. However it omits whether the file must already exist, whether formatting/metadata is preserved, permission needs, and failure behavior for a mutating operation.
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 repetition. It is tight, though borderline under-specified rather than maximally economical.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Still, for a write tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the definition leaves out preconditions, safety profile, and error handling, which an agent needs to invoke it confidently.
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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds only that 'text' becomes a paragraph and that 'path' targets a docx/odt file; it says nothing about accepted path forms (relative vs absolute), whether existing content is preserved, or newline handling.
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 (a paragraph) against named artifact types (docx/odt), which is clear and distinguishes it from read/replace siblings by implication. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use, so it lacks the explicit differentiation a 5 requires.
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 verb 'append' implies add-at-end usage, and the contrast with office_replace_tool is inferable, but the description never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or any preconditions. Usage is implied rather than specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.