split_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the exact splitting rule, front-matter naming, preservation of styles/numbering/settings/fonts/themes, stripping of other sections' note definitions and image parts, round-trip validation, filename format behavior, source safety, and refusal to overwrite existing outputs.

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 dense but every sentence contributes a distinct fact: purpose, splitting rule, special front-matter case, preservation and stripping behavior, validation, filename examples, and safety guarantees. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no 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?

For a complex document-splitting tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers the operation, splitting boundary rule, output naming, style fidelity, content stripping, validation, and both source and destination safety. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly, and an output schema is present for return-value details.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `level` semantics ('Sections start at each heading of `level` (or higher)') and `filename_from` with concrete examples ('heading' gives 01_Heading Text.docx, 'index' gives 01.docx). `file_path` and `output_dir` are not explicitly defined, but their meanings are clear from context and the safety statement about refusing existing output files.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Split a document into one standalone .docx per heading section.' It immediately distinguishes this from other tools by calling itself 'the inverse of com_merge_documents' and by focusing on heading-based section splitting rather than table splitting or other partition operations.

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: use this to split documents by heading sections, and it explicitly names the sibling tool com_merge_documents as the inverse, plus notes that no Word is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives besides the merge counterpart, so it falls just short of a 5.

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