set_shape_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('set or replace') but provides no additional context: no mention of write effects, error handling, reversibility, or what happens if the shape doesn't exist. The description is too thin to inform the agent about side effects beyond the basic mutation.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loaded with the main action. No filler or unnecessary detail; it earns its place.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is overly sparse. It fails to provide context about typical use cases, relationships to sibling tools (e.g., add_shape), or behavioral nuances (e.g., whether text is appended or replaced). The schema covers parameters, but the description leaves out essential operational context for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The schema already fully describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the default for pageIndex. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it simply restates the tool's purpose without clarifying parameter formats, constraints, or special behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (set or replace) and the resource (text label of a shape). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like move_shape or resize_shape, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for updating a shape's text label, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus other shape operations, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., shape must exist). There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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