docx_table_edit_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is for planning and risk review, implying it is non-destructive. However, it could explicitly state that it does not modify the document. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it omits essential parameter details, making it less complete. It earns its place but could include more information without becoming verbose.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the output contains or how parameters affect the plan. The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the 5 parameters (doc_id, block_id, table_id, target_columns, target_rows). The agent cannot understand how to fill these parameters based on the description alone.

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 'Plan a DOCX table write-back before applying structural changes.' It uses a specific verb ('plan') and resource ('DOCX table'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating it's a planning step before actual write-back (like docx_table_from_context).

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 explicit guidance: 'The current DFM bridge is safest for same-shape cell text updates. This plan separates safe cell updates from row/column/header structural changes so the caller can review risk before docx_table_from_context.' This tells when to use (before structural changes) and when not (for simple same-shape updates) and names an alternative tool.

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