word_append

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral info. It adds value by stating it preserves the document's existing content, but the truncated description gives no details on error handling, permissions, or formatting effects. This is a moderate level of disclosure.

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 single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Appends text') and key resource (existing Word document at path). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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?

As a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an incomplete input schema, the description fails to cover expected return values, error conditions, preconditions, or side effects beyond preservation. The agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 description references a `path` parameter, but the input schema has zero properties. This mismatch is confusing for an agent, and no type, format, or requiredness details are provided. The schema cannot be used at all, and the description only names the parameter without explaining it.

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 appends text to an existing .docx file at a path, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like word_create (which creates new documents) and word_read (which reads).

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 qualifier 'existing' implies it should be used for existing documents rather than new ones, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned. It provides context but not definitive when-to-use guidance.

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