apple_pages_set_text

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description goes beyond them by naming the specific damage ('can remove existing rich formatting') and the side effect channel ('autosave and sync'). It stops short of saying whether the change is reversible or how autosave timing works.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action, then the destructive consequence, then the precondition. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 destructive, non-idempotent write with no output schema, the description covers the destructive effect, the sync/autosave behavior, and the word-processing-document prerequisite. The remaining gap is the workflow context (requires an open document) and how append interacts with existing content.

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 only 33% – only documentName is documented in-schema. The description's 'plain text' wording clarifies the untagged text parameter (plain text only, formatting is lost) and 'replace or append' maps to the mode enum, but it adds no format, length, or naming guidance beyond that.

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 specific verbs (replace/append) and the resource (Pages plain text), which cleanly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling apple_pages_read_text and the analogous apple_textedit_set_text. The scoping is clear, though it never names a sibling or the complementary apple_pages_open step.

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?

Usage is implied by the verbs and the precondition 'Pages requires a word-processing document' is a useful constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no statement about whether the document must already be open (apple_pages_open) before this call.

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