LibreOffice MCP Tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions saving state but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this overwrites files, requires write permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid path), or confirms success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('save the current state') and includes key details (file path options). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with potential side effects (file overwriting), the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral risks, error handling, or output expectations, but does not, leaving significant gaps for agent usage.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (docId, filePath) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond schema, mentioning 'original path' which aligns with schema's optional note, but no additional syntax or format details.

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 clearly states the verb ('save') and resource ('current state of a document'), specifying it saves to a file path (original or new). It distinguishes from siblings like document_export (conversion) or document_close (closing without saving), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives, keeping it at 4.

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 implies usage when saving document changes, with optional new path for saving elsewhere. It doesn't explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like document_export (for format conversion) or document_close (discarding changes), nor mention prerequisites (e.g., document must be open), leaving gaps.

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