edit_document

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the three edit operations, the input structures, and the prerequisite 'Requires allow_file_write in ~/.syscontrol/config.json'. It does not mention in-place modification or error handling, but the provided details are adequate for a mutation tool.

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 a concise four-sentence block. It leads with the purpose, then explains each parameter group in a structured manner, and ends with the configuration requirement. No useless words or repetition.

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?

The description covers the purpose, all operation modes, parameter shapes, and the configuration prerequisite. It does not explain return values, but no output schema is provided and the tool is a simple mutation, so the description is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions and examples for all four parameters. The tool description merely restates these parameter formats in prose, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's purpose: 'Edit a Word document (.docx)' with three specific operations: find-and-replace, overwrite a paragraph by index, and append new paragraphs. This precise verb-resource pair and the enumerated operations distinguish it from sibling tools like edit_file and read_document.

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 implies when to use the tool by specifying the .docx file type and the available operations. It does not explicitly exclude plain-text editing (which edit_file might handle) or contrast with read_document, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for Word documents.

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