Merge Word styles by re-pointing all content from source styles to a target style and deleting the sources in a .docx.
Re-point every use of the 'from' styles to 'into' and delete them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | Yes | Path to the .docx. | |
| from | Yes | Style id or name, or a list of them (they are removed). | |
| into | Yes | Style id or name. | |
| expect | No | ||
| dry_run | No | Preview only; write nothing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully discloses destructive behavior (the 'from' styles are removed) beyond what the annotation states, but omits the existence of a dry_run preview, the sha256 preflight expectation, and irreversibility/error handling. Solid but incomplete.
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?
A single tight sentence with the destructive outcome front-loaded alongside the core action. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's destructive nature.
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 destructive mutation with no output schema and nested parameters, the description covers the core action but leaves out the dry_run preview path and the sha256 preflight, which matter for safely invoking a delete-style merge. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the crucial relationship that 'from' styles are removed while 'into' is preserved, which clarifies the from/into semantics, but says nothing about 'expect', 'dry_run', or list handling for 'from' beyond what the schema already documents.
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?
States a specific verb (re-point) and resource (styles) plus the merge semantics: uses of 'from' get redirected to 'into' and 'from' is deleted. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like style_rename and style_update, which modify single styles rather than consolidating them. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.
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 merge semantics imply when to use it (consolidating duplicate/redundant styles), but the description gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and never points to alternatives such as style_rename or style_update. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.