Set an input_text value

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description supplements this by disclosing the underlying service call (input_text.set_value over HTTP), which is a modest but genuine addition; it adds no auth, rate-limit, or failure-mode context.

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 short lines with zero filler: purpose first, implementation detail second, usage/return last. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter setter with an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient; the explicit 'Returns' line is partly redundant given the output schema, leaving only minor gaps such as preconditions (entity must exist) or failure behavior.

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 100%, so both parameters (entity_id, value) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, syntax, or validation detail beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set an input_text helper's text value') and even names the underlying service call, which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like helpers_set_input_boolean, helpers_set_input_number, and helpers_set_input_select.

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 'Use when: writing a specific string to an input_text helper' line gives a triggering condition, but it essentially restates the purpose and offers no when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g., entities_set_value for generic entities).

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