set_update_fields_flag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well. It discloses one-shot semantics, Word clearing the flag, backup behavior including rotation skip when backup=False, atomic validated save, and refusal when the document is 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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by backup behavior and the refusal guard. Every clause adds useful information.

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 tool with no annotations, this is nearly complete: flag lifecycle, backup side effects, persistence model, and a key error condition are all present. A small gap remains in documenting file_path expectations, but the output schema relieves the need to describe return values.

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. It gives strong semantics for backup ('backup=False skips rotation only') and implies on/off behavior through 'Toggle'. However, the required file_path parameter is only indirectly covered by 'documents open in Word', with no path format or location detail.

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 names the exact operation: toggling 'update all fields on next open', with the one-shot qualifier. This clearly identifies the target resource and distinguishes it from nearby tools like com_refresh_fields or insert_field.

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?

It provides clear usage context: the flag affects only the next open and Word clears it after updating. It also states an explicit exclusion by refusing documents open in Word. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling shares this exact one-shot flag purpose.

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