set_textbox_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it replaces existing content, each run becomes a styled run on one paragraph, url makes a run a hyperlink, and bulleted=true renders as a bullet. This effectively communicates the destructive and formatting behavior, though it does not cover edge cases like empty runs or undoability.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then delivers the important details about the runs format, hyperlink behavior, bulleted option, and replacement semantics. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant content.

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 tool with moderate complexity (multi-run JSON, styling, hyperlink, bullet), the description gives enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly: it identifies the resource type, the run structure, and the key behaviors. It lacks explanation of reportSessionId, but that is common across siblings and may be inferred. No output schema exists, so return value descriptions are unnecessary.

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 80% (4/5 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is not automatically 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'runs' is a JSON array where each element becomes a styled run on one paragraph, that 'url' creates a hyperlink, and that 'bulleted=true' renders as a bullet. It does not explain reportSessionId, but the main structured parameters are enriched.

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 the action ('Set RICH multi-run text on a textbox') and the resource (textbox), and distinguishes it from a sibling tool ('add_textbox is single-run'). The verb 'Set' with the resource 'textbox' is specific, and the phrase 'Replaces the textbox's current content' further clarifies the scope.

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 explicitly names the alternative add_textbox and contrasts it with 'single-run', giving the agent a clear choice between the two. However, it does not provide more exhaustive 'when-to-use' guidance beyond this distinction, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions.

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