update_text

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the mutation ('change the string') and adds a useful preservation detail ('keeping its anchor and alignment'), but it does not reveal what happens to other text properties, whether the update is destructive, or what kind of response to expect.

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 entire description is a single efficient sentence with the key action and resource front-loaded)Skiphen the parenthetical supplies the necessary provenance for the identifier. There is no filler or repetition of schema field names.

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 tool takes only two simple string parameters and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It gives the source for the identifier and states the preserved attributes, making the operation reasonably clear. It might benefit from a note on other affected properties, but that is a minor gap for this complexity.

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. It does so by explaining that 'name' is an identifier originating from get_texts and that 'text' is the new string value. This is meaningful semantic guidance beyond the raw schema labels 'Name' and 'Text'.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Change the string of an existing text') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_text by emphasizing it operates on an existing text object. The parenthetical 'name from get_texts' further anchors the resource identity, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool is for.

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 provides clear context by instructing the agent to obtain the 'name' from get_texts, which routes usage to the correct workflow. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus create_text, the word 'existing' and the named source make the appropriate use case clear.

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