macro_set_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, but it only states the mutating operation. It does not mention that existing text is overwritten, whether the macro must exist, or any error or permission behavior, which is important for a write-type 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 one short sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the core action. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the under-specification reflected in other dimensions.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. An agent cannot confidently know whether the macro must already exist, what macro_type values mean, or how this operation relates to macro_get_text and macro_create.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds minimal parameter meaning. It loosely maps 'text content' to the text parameter and 'Macro' to macro_path, while leaving macro_type and its enum semantics completely unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('text content of a Macro'), so an agent can immediately understand the core operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like macro_get_text and macro_execute at the verb level, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 given about when to use this tool versus macro_create, macro_execute, or macro_get_text. The description also fails to state whether the macro must already exist or how macro_type affects which macro is targeted, leaving key selection and prerequisite decisions to inference.

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