update_content_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that optional parameters are omitted to leave unchanged, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., document open state), or error cases like non-existent control_id.

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: one sentence for purpose and a bulleted list for parameters. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Assuming an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description need not detail return values. However, it omits error handling, prerequisites, and the document scope, which would enhance completeness for a mutation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, including the w: namespace identifiers and the omit-to-leave-unchanged behavior for optional fields. This adds significant value 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 'Modify properties of an existing content control,' using a specific verb and resource. Among sibling tools like add_content_control, delete_content_control, and get_content_control, it uniquely identifies the update operation.

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 usage for updating existing controls via 'existing content control,' but it does not explicitly contrast with other tools like set_content_control_value or provide when-not guidance. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternatives.

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