word_add_password_protection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It adds implementation detail (settings.xml w:documentProtection) and clarifies the action type, but it does not disclose whether existing protections are overwritten, whether the file is modified in place, or that the password is required to remove the restriction. This is partly balanced by the wording, but lacks depth.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes a useful technical hint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With three well-documented parameters and a simple, well-defined operation, the description covers the core behavior sufficiently. It does not mention return values or behavior when protection already exists, and no output schema is present, but for a focused protection tool this is a minor gap.

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% for all three parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond contextualizing the purpose (password protects, edit_restriction controls the restriction type). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('enforce') and clearly names the resource ('password-protected editing restriction' on a Word document), plus the underlying mechanism ('settings.xml w:documentProtection'). This distinguishes it from sibling word_* tools that handle formatting, reading, or content edits.

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 context of use is implied: when you need to add password-protected editing restrictions to a Word document. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other tools (e.g., word_apply_document_preset) nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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