com_save_with_password

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well: it reveals the encryption is genuine AES applied by Word, explains the output_path default and copy behavior, and states the operational dependency ('Requires Word installed; opens an invisible instance'). It does not warn about overwriting the original when output_path is omitted or about password loss, but the key side effects are covered.

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 providing distinct value: the core capability, the output_path semantics, and the Word/runtime requirement. No repetition or filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given an output schema exists and the tool has only three parameters, the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. It explains the optional path behavior, the required password, and the environment prerequisite. The only notable gap is making the file_path source role explicit, but this is inferable from 'same file' and the tool name.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds real semantics for output_path ('defaults to the same file; a different path saves a new encrypted copy') and for password ('requiring a password to open'), but file_path's role as the source document is only inferred rather than explicitly defined.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Save an ENCRYPTED copy requiring a password to open,' then clarifies it is real AES encryption and explicitly contrasts it with document protection, which is an editing restriction. This makes the tool's purpose and its distinction from protection-related siblings clear.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when password-protected encryption is needed, and it explicitly rules out the document-protection use case ('unlike document protection which is an editing restriction'). It does not name an alternative sibling or explicitly say 'use set_document_protection for editing restrictions,' so it falls short of a full 5.

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