set_frame_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals a mutation intent ('sets or appends') but does not disclose what 'set' means (replace all text?), whether append/prepend are position-based, or any side effects (e.g., affects other frames). It also omits error behavior or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It wastes no words, but it omits useful context that could be added without lengthening much (e.g., behavior of modes). Effective but slightly under-informative for the complexity.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and four parameters, the description does not explain what happens on success (return value, UI update), how 'set' differs from 'append' behaviorally, or any constraints (e.g., document must be open, frame existence). The schema covers param syntax but not runtime semantics, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented structurally. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the tool's purpose and does not explain how mode values (replace/append/prepend) interact with the text. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds minimal value.

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 states a clear verb ('sets or appends') and resource ('text frame'), and the mention of mode clarifies the action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like insert_text or replace_text, which could cause confusion about which tool to use. It is specific about targeting a frame but not about how the frame is selected (page/index).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like insert_text, replace_text, or get_text. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open document) or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and siblings, which is weak.

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