styleset_export-dotx

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false marks this as a write, and the description usefully clarifies that the write targets a new file and 'never touches the document' – a meaningful safety detail beyond the annotation. It does not disclose overwrite behavior when `out` already exists, required permissions, or error conditions.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key behavioral constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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 file-export tool with full schema coverage and an annotation carrying the read/write signal, the description is nearly complete; the non-destructive constraint is stated. Minor gaps remain around overwrite semantics, but no output schema is needed since the result is a written file.

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 100%, so every parameter (doc, out, name, styles, custom_only) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (write/export) and resource (the document's styles as a .dotx template), which is clear on its own. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling styleset_export, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which export variant to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative styleset_export or styleset_import-dotx. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and the sibling list, with only the 'never touches the document' clause hinting at the operation's nature.

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