word_ensure_anchors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, but does not disclose side effects, whether the file is modified in place, idempotency, or any return value. This is insufficient 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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and earns its place, though it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation's outcome, such as return values or in-place mutation behavior. It covers neither, leaving the agent with incomplete information for a mutation tool.

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?

The schema fully describes the file_path parameter (100% coverage) with a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('assign'), the resource ('stable paraId anchors'), and the condition ('to any paragraph missing one'). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like word_edit_paragraphs or word_set_paragraph_formats.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. While it implies a use case (paragraphs missing anchors), it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with other word tools.

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