live_set_track_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a simple verb by explaining that the change is persistent, returns the previous state for later restoration, and requires an open Word document. It does not cover error behavior when no document matches file_path, but the disclosed behaviors are substantive and non-obvious.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by the persistence contrast, return value, and prerequisite. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or filler.

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 the action, persistence, return value, and prerequisite, which is solid for a simple toggle tool. However, because both parameters are undocumented in the schema and the description leaves `file_path` semantics implicit, an agent may struggle to invoke the tool correctly. Error handling for a missing open document is also unstated, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining both parameters. 'On or off' indirectly maps to the boolean `enabled`, but `file_path` is never mentioned by name, nor is its format or role in targeting the open document explained. Since file_path is required, this is a meaningful 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 opens with a specific verb ('Turn') and a clear resource ('track changes on or off') scoped to the open document. It also differentiates itself from sibling edit tools like search_and_replace by noting that this is a persistent state change, so an agent can distinguish it from similar track-related flags.

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 contrasts this tool with the auto-restoring track flag on edit tools like search_and_replace, giving a clear exclusion condition. It also states the important prerequisite that the document must be open in Word. It does not list all alternative contexts (e.g., inspecting tracked changes), but the key when-not guidance is present.

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