word_create_custom_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility, but it only states the action and target file. It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., file existence), overwrite behavior for existing style IDs, or any error conditions—significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, directly states the action and target, and contains no redundant information—ideal conciseness.

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 create operation with 9 parameters and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks any explanation of style reuse, when to use this vs direct formatting, or behavioral outcomes. The schema covers parameters, but the overall tool context is poorly filled.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies due to complete schema coverage.

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 ('Create') with a clear resource ('custom paragraph style') and location ('Word document's styles.xml'), distinguishing it from sibling formatting tools that apply formatting rather than define reusable styles.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like word_format_text or word_set_paragraph_formats. The description simply states what it does without explaining the contextual use case or exclusions.

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