com_save_open_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the no-op condition ('Does nothing if Word is not running or the file is not open') and the prerequisite ('Requires Word installed'), which are critical behavioral traits. It doesn't detail edge cases like authentication or overwrite prompts, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, usage second, no-op and prerequisite last. No fluff, no repetition, front-loaded with the primary action.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, when it is a no-op, and what it requires. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret a silent failure.

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 does so by framing file_path as the document Word has open, and the no-op clause adds that the file must be open. Though it doesn't explicitly say 'file_path is the path to an open document,' the meaning is strongly implied and operationally useful.

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?

States a specific verb ('SAVE') and resource (a document Word has open), with a clear purpose: flushing edits to disk so file-based tools can read the current state. The description distinguishes this from siblings like com_close_open_document by emphasizing persistence to disk.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use before diagnose_document or any file-mode tool that needs the latest edits flushed to disk.' This is a concrete, actionable routing rule that names a sibling and a category of alternative tools.

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