docx-editContent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It states 'Replace' implying mutation, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., changes to block indices), error conditions, required permissions, or whether the replacement is in-place. The behavioral impact on the document is underdescribed.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides essential prerequisites. It achieves maximum clarity with minimal length.

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?

For a mutation tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic direction and references supplementary tools. However, it lacks details on expected return value, error handling, and behavioral guarantees, which are important for safe automated use. It is functional but not fully self-contained.

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 0% description coverage, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions 'block' and references docx-getSchema for block structure, but does not explain the 'id' or 'index' parameters. The agent must infer that 'id' identifies the document and 'index' specifies the block position, which is not explicitly stated.

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 action 'Replace a block at index,' which is a specific verb and resource. It provides context by referencing prerequisite tools (docx-queryObjects, docx-getSchema), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like docx-insertContent or docx-removeContent, leaving the agent to infer when replacement is preferred.

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 advises using docx-queryObjects and docx-getSchema first, which provides useful sequential guidance. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., insert or remove), nor does it give contraindications or examples of appropriate use cases.

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