apply_edits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It discloses validation-before-mutation, all-or-nothing stale-anchor behavior, changed-map results, operation ordering, backup behavior, atomic save, live Word undo-step semantics, rollback, and file-mode limitations.

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 dense but appropriately so for a complex batch API with no schema-level documentation. The core behavior and when-to-use guidance are front-loaded, followed by op details and failure-recovery guidance. Every clause adds operational value.

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 anchor sourcing, per-op semantics, validation order, stale-anchor failure handling, chaining via fresh anchors, operation ordering, backup, atomicity, live Word behavior, markdown limitations, and recovery steps. Combined with the output schema, an agent has sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by thoroughly documenting the edit op shapes and fields: replace, set_text, insert, delete, set_style, format, set_paragraph_format, and set_cell. It even gives the anchor format for set_cell and clarifies backup=False behavior.

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 that this tool applies a batch of anchor-addressed edits in one call, and specifies that anchors come from get_document_view. It also distinguishes itself from single-edit standalone tools by noting it is for changes needing two or more edits.

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?

It explicitly says to use this when a change needs two or more edits and to use the standalone tool for one edit. It also gives a recovery workflow: re-view, resend, and if stale targets refuse, use com_save_document first.

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