set_content_control_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Replace the text' does signal that existing content in the field is overwritten, which is useful, but there is nothing about permissions, failure behavior for a bad id, or whether surrounding formatting is preserved.

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 with the core action and the id source front-loaded; nothing is padded or repeated.

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 5-param mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is largely sufficient. It could say what is returned (e.g., the updated control) or whether text replacement inherits field formatting, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the id provenance and documentId fallback. The description only restates the optionality of title/tag and adds no format or constraint detail beyond structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb ('Replace') plus resource ('text of a content control (template field)') and the lookup key (id). It also names list_content_controls as the source of that id, which distinguishes it from paragraph-editing siblings like set_paragraph_text or replace_text.

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?

It establishes the prerequisite chain (get the id from list_content_controls) and clarifies that title/tag updates are optional on the same call. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over replace_text or set_paragraph_text, but the context is clear enough to act on.

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