save_docx

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It covers safety mechanisms (content shrinkage >50% triggers rejection), force option, track_changes feature, and the overall workflow (parse, load IR, merge, rebuild). This provides comprehensive transparency.

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 well-structured with sections for modes, workflow, safety, and args. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, some details (e.g., the exact merge strategy) could be condensed without losing clarity.

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 complexity (8 params, two modes, safety logic), the description covers workflow, parameter semantics, and return value ('儲存結果'). It could be more specific about the return value structure, but it is generally complete for a save operation.

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 carries the full burden. It lists all 8 parameters with explanations, defaults, and interactions (e.g., dfm_content optional when from_md=True). This greatly aids understanding beyond the bare schema.

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 starts with '將編輯後的內容存回 .docx 檔案' which directly states the action and resource. It details two modes (DFM and MD) and outlines the workflow, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'docx' which likely handle other docx operations.

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 explains when to use each mode (DFM default, from_md=True for MD) and mentions the force flag for safety overrides. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough for typical usage.

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