set_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds. It discloses conflict behavior, that the handler is not executed on conflict, that conflict and latest doc are returned, that retry with stale arguments is forbidden, and that communication errors can leave application outcome unknown.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The core action is front-loaded, followed by dense but relevant rules about conflicts, retries, error ambiguity, and preflight checks. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers conflict responses, error ambiguity, and precondition checking, which is substantial for a two-parameter tool with no output schema. It stops short of describing the normal success return payload, but the practical call path is fully specified.

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 coverage is only 50% because text lacks a property description, but the top-level phrase 'Replace the shared note text' makes the text parameter's meaning clear. baseRevision is thoroughly documented in both the schema and the description, including the requirement to pass the observed revision string exactly.

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 opens with 'Replace the shared note text', which names the exact verb and resource being acted on. This clearly distinguishes set_text from siblings like set_settings and set_box, so an agent can select the right tool without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: pass the observed baseRevision as-is, do not run the handler on version conflict, re-evaluate intent against the latest doc, never auto-resend stale arguments, and first use await_change to check current state. It even names a sibling tool for the precondition check.

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