update_content_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to mention whether the operation is destructive, what happens if control_id is invalid, if it returns any result, or if it requires the document to be open. These gaps limit 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 concise with a straightforward first sentence and a structured Args list. It avoids unnecessary details, though the Args list could be integrated more seamlessly. Still, it efficiently conveys essential information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., immediate update vs requiring save) and error conditions. For a tool with 4 parameters and one sibling set, it is somewhat complete but has gaps.

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 description includes an Args section that explains each parameter's meaning (e.g., control_id as w:id, title as w:alias/@w:val, tag as w:tag/@w:val) and clarifies that omitting optional parameters leaves them unchanged. This adds significant value beyond the schema, which only lists types and defaults.

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 it modifies properties of an existing content control, specifying the resource and verb. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_content_control, delete_content_control, and set_content_control_value, which handle creation, deletion, or value setting respectively.

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 implies use when modifying properties but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_content_control_value. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as the content control must exist, or when not to use it.

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