set_compatible_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and gives parameter meanings, but does not mention side effects, whether the document is modified permanently, error conditions, or required preconditions. The hint that doc_id comes from open_document is useful but is more of a parameter semantic than behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a structured Args list. It avoids unnecessary words, though the parameter explanations are terse. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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 is adequate but incomplete. It covers the source of doc_id and one program identifier, but does not explain the return value or any behavioral effects. Since an output schema exists, the return format is handled elsewhere, but the description still lacks critical context about side effects or prerequisites beyond the doc_id hint.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters: doc_id as 'from open_document', target_program as '0=HWP' (though incomplete for other values), and current_version as optional. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, giving the agent actionable context.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Set document compatibility mode.' It is specific enough to distinguish from common sibling tools like convert_to_pdf or set_view_properties, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 simply states the action and lists parameters without any context on prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and parameter hints.

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