set_text_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does, without mentioning side effects, such as whether it replaces the entire text, what happens if the node is not found or is not a text node, or whether the operation is reversible. The 'existing' hint implies a precondition but does not explain failure modes, making it inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the primary action without extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary repetition of the tool name.

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 is simple, with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. However, the description lacks contextual guidance on when to use it among many related text-manipulation tools and does not disclose behavioral expectations such as error handling or whether the existing text is fully replaced. Given the low complexity, the description is marginally adequate but leaves notable gaps for an agent 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with both parameters (nodeId and text) described meaningfully. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The schema already explains that nodeId is the ID of the text node to modify and text is the new content.

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 verb and resource: 'Set the text content of an existing text node'. The word 'existing' distinguishes it from create_text, and 'text content' indicates the specific mutation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool set_multiple_text_contents, which also sets text content, though on multiple nodes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for single nodes only, nor does it contrast with set_multiple_text_contents or create_text. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description, providing no explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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