web_set_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the expected_rev/retry pattern, but that same detail is already in the schema. It does not disclose that this overwrites existing text, whether permissions are required, or what a successful mutation returns. For an unannotated mutation tool, this is a significant omission.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed immediately by the one non-obvious calling constraint. No filler or repetition.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description should carry more of the behavioral contract for a four-required-parameter mutation tool. It omits overwrite semantics, permission expectations, success/failure behavior, and sibling routing, leaving notable gaps.

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 the schema already explains text, file_id, node_id, and expected_rev. The description repeats the expected_rev guidance but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Set the text of one paired HTML node.' This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like web_set_attr and web_css_set, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is clear without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'Pass expected_rev from your last read' implies a prerequisite workflow (read before write) but does not state when to use this tool versus web_set_attr or web_css_set, nor does it give explicit exclusions. Usage is therefore implied rather than guided.

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