com_refresh_fields

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the source file is modified in place, the operation uses an invisible Word instance, requires Word to be installed, and produces corrected values immediately. This is strong behavioral context, though it does not mention potential side effects like file locking or failure modes.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action and scope. It includes useful context about when to use it and prerequisites like Word installation, though some phrasing could be tightened without losing information.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main operational context: what it updates, when it is needed, that it modifies the source file, and that Word is required. It is missing explicit details about file_path semantics, but overall it is complete enough for most agent workflows.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented file_path parameter. It does not explicitly define that file_path is the path to the Word document or state any format/access expectations. The meaning is inferable from the tool name and context, but for a single required parameter the lack of explicit guidance is a notable gap.

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 a specific action ('Update every field in the document') and lists concrete field types it affects, such as TOC page numbers, PAGEREF, NUMPAGES, and cross-references. It distinguishes itself by naming the context after insert_toc/insert_index/insert_caption_list operations, which helps differentiate it from generic field tools.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: after inserting TOCs, indexes, or caption lists, and after any edit that shifts pages. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the stated use cases are sufficiently clear and actionable.

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