word_append

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'appends text' but does not specify what happens if the document is missing, whether it overwrites existing content, or any other side effects. The lack of parameters also raises questions about how text is supplied.

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 concise sentence. While it is brief, it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not overly verbose, but it is under-specified for effective use.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description fails to provide enough context. The tool's behavior, prerequisites (existing document), and output are not addressed. Given its simplicity, more detail is needed.

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 has zero properties, and the description does not explain how the text to append is specified. This is a critical omission. The schema coverage is trivially 100% but adds no value because there are no parameters. The description should clarify the tool's input mechanism.

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?

Description clearly states the action (appends text) and the resource (existing Word document). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like word_create or word_read, missing an opportunity to clarify use cases.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. For instance, it does not clarify that the document must already exist, nor when to use word_create for new documents or word_read for reading.

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