set_editor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: writes go to the iframe body, html=true writes markup and syncs CKEditor data, and submits=true triggers form submission. However it is silent on what happens on failure, whether existing editor content is overwritten, and the semantics of confirm/reason, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause, then uses short paragraphs to explain the iframe/textarea mechanic and the two key booleans. No wasted sentences, though the CKEditor/TinyMCE aside could be tightened slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the primary write workflow well. But with zero annotations, 0% schema coverage and two unaddressed parameters (confirm, reason), an agent still lacks guidance on confirmation/approval semantics and overwrite 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains the most consequential parameters: selector (default to first editor, or pass iframe/[contenteditable]), html (markup vs verbatim, CKEditor sync), and submits (write sends the form). It does not explain reason or confirm, leaving 2 of 6 parameters undocumented in both places.

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 (write into) and resource (a rich-text editor, described as 'the body a form actually posts'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling type_text by explaining why type_text fails on hidden textareas. An agent can identify the tool's job and its niche without opening the schema.

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?

Names the alternative (type_text) and the condition that selects this tool instead (rich-text editors where the submitted textarea is hidden). It also gives routing guidance for selector (empty = first editor, or pass the iframe/[contenteditable]). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or other alternatives, so not a full 5.

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