update_text

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists updatable fields and does not mention whether updates are partial/full, permissions required, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool, similar to the update_drive example.

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 efficiently structured with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear Args list. Every line provides value, and the nested 'properties' field is broken down logically. No fluff or redundancy.

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 description covers the main purpose and parameter details. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, it lacks clarification on partial vs. full replacement and the meaning of some fields like 'parentId', leaving minor 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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter, especially 'properties', which enumerates all supported fields including the 'style' sub-object. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema that only has 'additionalProperties: true'.

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 action ('Update a text widget') on a specific resource (mural), and identifies the widget types ('title or textbox'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that update other widget types like sticky notes, shapes, or arrows.

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 text/title/textbox widgets and not for others, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Clear context is provided, but no direct 'when not to use' or alternative tool references are given.

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