set_document_properties

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses auto-backup behavior with slot rotation, the effect of backup=False, atomic validated saving, and refusal when the document is open in Word. This goes well beyond what the schema could express.

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 dense sentences with no filler: purpose comes first, followed by backup/save behavior and a hard failure condition. Every clause carries meaningful operational information, and the structure is front-loaded for quick agent parsing.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that can cover return details, the description provides purpose, change semantics, backup behavior, save validation, and an important refusal case. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly without needing to infer hidden side effects.

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 prose must compensate. It names all settable metadata fields and explains the backup flag's nuance ('backup=False skips rotation only') plus the incremental update semantics. It does not spell out every detail like null handling or file_path, but the parameter names are otherwise transparent.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set core document metadata' and lists the exact fields (title, author, subject, keywords, category, comments). The File > Info context anchors it clearly, and it is easy to distinguish from the read-only sibling get_document_info.

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 phrase 'only the parameters given change' clearly communicates the incremental update behavior, which is essential for correct usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it over related metadata-reading tools.

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