set_document_protection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains trackedChanges semantics, password hashing compatibility, the distinction between protection and encryption, backup rotation behavior, atomic validated save, and the refusal to operate on documents currently open in Word.

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 core purpose. Every sentence contributes distinct operational information, and the use of semicolons keeps related details together without unnecessary exposition.

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 most invocation-critical behavior, especially given the presence of an output schema for return values. However, restrict_formatting is a parameter with no documentation anywhere, and the description does not clarify whether it is required for certain protection modes or how it interacts with the edit setting. This is a meaningful gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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 and no enums, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for edit (mode list and trackedChanges behavior), password (Word-compatible SHA-512, not encryption), and backup (rotation semantics). However, restrict_formatting is left entirely unexplained, despite being a schema property, and file_path semantics are only implicit.

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 'Restrict editing', a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the supported modes: readOnly, comments, trackedChanges, forms. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling encryption tool com_save_with_password, so an agent can separate protection from encryption without needing the schema.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool and explicitly routes encryption use to com_save_with_password. It does not explicitly contrast with get_protection or remove_document_protection, but the purpose and scope are evident enough that an agent can infer the correct selection.

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