set_element_text

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

Without annotations, the description reveals the internal mechanism: clears existing text then sets new text in one batch (deleteText + insertText). It also states safety on empty elements, offering full 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 well-structured but slightly redundant (mentions 'in one call' twice). The Args section is clear, and overall it's efficient without being overly verbose.

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 simple tool (3 string params) and existence of output schema, the description covers behavior, parameters, and use case. Missing error conditions but adequate for the context.

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%, but the description includes an Args section explaining all three parameters (presentation_id, element_id, text) with meaningful descriptions, compensating fully.

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 replaces all text of a shape or table cell in one API call. It distinguishes itself from siblings like insert_text by specifying it replaces all text, and provides a concrete use case (filling duplicated slides).

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 notes it's safe on empty elements and gives a specific use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or provide direct comparisons to siblings like insert_text or replace_all_text, but the context is inferable.

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