word_save

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, and the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not clarify what 'save' entails (e.g., whether it overwrites, creates a new version, or applies header/footer edits) despite the annotations lowering the bar.

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 extremely brief (four Chinese characters), which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits critical context about the operation and parameters, making it insufficiently informative even as a single sentence.

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 has 4 parameters and optional header/footer/page-number features, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what saving involves or the effect of the parameters, and there is no output schema to compensate, leaving the agent with limited operational understanding.

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 each parameter having a short description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies; it does not compensate further but is not lacking due to high schema coverage.

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 '保存文档' (save document) clearly states a verb (save) and a resource (document), making the core action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly mention Word or differentiate itself from sibling tools like excel_save, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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