edit_ribbon_solution

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: dry-run defaults to preview with no file written, execution writes an exclusive NEW ZIP and never overwrites the input, and preservation guarantees for other languages/rules/handlers and other archive payloads are spelled out. Consistent with destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false since the input archive is never mutated.

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-loading is good ('Preview by default') and every clause carries real content, but the body is three very long run-on sentences packed with comma-chained constraints. It is dense to the point that an agent must parse carefully to extract the operational rules.

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?

With 13 parameters, 62% schema coverage, no output schema and a mutation workflow, the description covers safety, idempotency/hash flow, preservation semantics and out-of-scope work well. It leaves a gap on what the preview/execute returns (presumably a planHash plus summary) and how the agent obtains that hash for the execute call.

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?

Description explains the changes model at a semantic level (publisher-scoped IDs, explicit current-table insertion location, ordered parameters, multilingual labels, packaged JS/raster icons) that the schema's structural constraints do not convey, and it flags the planHash requirement. However it says 'planHash' while the schema field is expected_hash, a naming mismatch that could cause confusion, and dry_run/output path handling is only partially reinforced.

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 precise verb+resource: editing classic RibbonDiffXml in an ordinary unmanaged local ZIP, including the specific sub-operations (add custom JS button, update labels/sequence, set visibility). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming what remains separate (built-in replacements, arbitrary rules, handler updates, modern commands, deployment), which separates it from inspect_ribbon_solution, import_ribbon_solution and publish_ribbon_solution.

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?

Gives clear scope boundaries: 'Preview by default', 'never overwrite input, import, publish or run code', and lists workflows that remain separate. It stops short of telling the agent to call inspect_ribbon_solution first or to run preview then execute with the returned hash, so the sequencing is implied rather than prescribed.

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