update_content_control

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly implies mutation but does not mention error conditions, side effects (e.g., whether changes are persisted immediately), or permission requirements. The output schema is present but not visible in the description.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses efficient language. The Args section adds detail without redundancy. Every sentence provides necessary information.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers parameter meanings and the 'leave unchanged' behavior. However, it lacks discussion of error handling (e.g., control not found) and prerequisites (e.g., document must be open), though these may be implied.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's XML mapping (e.g., w:id, w:alias/@w:val) and the effect of omitting optional parameters (leaves unchanged). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool modifies an existing content control and lists the specific properties (title, tag, placeholder_text) that can be updated. This verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_content_control, delete_content_control, and set_content_control_value.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information about prerequisites, such as the document being open or the content control existing, and does not compare with similar tools like set_content_control_value.

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