Markdown to Word

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

It discloses meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: empty markdown is refused, overwriting without the flag is refused, and the response includes a file plus block-count breakdown. Since the annotations are sparse, these details carry real weight.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose and return value first, supported features second, and constraints third. Every sentence 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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the response shape, accepted input constraints, and error/overwrite behavior. Remaining details like output path defaults are already in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 already covers markdown, title, out_path, and overwrite in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful validation constraint—empty markdown is refused—and reinforces markdown features, but it does not clarify the style parameter, keeping it just above baseline.

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 tool converts markdown into a .docx, names the return value (the file and block count), and is distinct from siblings like doc_to_html or doc_create. The verb+resource pairing is specific and actionable.

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?

It opens with 'Call this tool to turn markdown into a .docx,' giving an explicit use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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