zen_set_editable_content

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It mentions setting text/HTML and the clear parameter for replacing vs appending, but does not disclose whether it triggers DOM events, waits for element visibility, or handles errors like non-editable elements. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 one-line purpose, a practical example, and a structured parameter list. It avoids unnecessary elaboration and front-loads key information, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 5 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description provides comprehensive parameter explanations and a clear use case. It is complete enough for typical usage, though missing details on return values or error handling are minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It includes an Args section that explains each parameter's purpose (selector, value, format, clear, tab_id) beyond the schema's type-only definitions, adding meaningful context. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool sets text or HTML in contenteditable editors, inputs, or textareas. It specifies the action and target resource well, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like zen_type or zen_fill, which also modify input elements.

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 suggests use for rich editors like Gmail compose bodies where typing is slow, providing a clear use case. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to alternative tools like zen_type or zen_fill, leaving the decision partially ambiguous.

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