Set (replace) text

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the operation is one atomic deleteText(ALL)+insertText batch, the delete is skipped for empty targets, an empty text clears the object, and per-character styling is dropped. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs to anticipate.

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?

Every sentence has a purpose: core behavior, edge-case handling, clearing semantics, styling consequence, and table-cell parameter guidance. It is front-loaded with the most important fact and contains no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers target types, required table parameters, empty-input behavior, atomicity, and styling side effects. The idempotency hint and destructive hint are already in annotations, so no critical gap remains.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by clarifying that object_id refers to a shape or table cell, that row_index and column_index must be supplied together, and that an empty text string clears the object.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Replaces the ENTIRE text of a shape or table cell'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like insert_text or replace_text by emphasizing whole-content replacement rather than partial insertion or search-based replacement.

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 clearly implies when to use it — when the entire text must be replaced — and explicitly tells the agent to pass row_index plus column_index together for table cells. It also points to update_text_style as the follow-up for restyling, but does not explicitly contrast with insert_text or replace_text, so it lacks direct exclusions.

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