Set Shape Data

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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, leaving the description to carry behavioral details. It mentions row creation on missing fields but does not describe whether existing values are overwritten, potential side effects, or error behavior.

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 brief and well-organized, with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a compact parameter list. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 provides enough context for a simple setter operation and references related tools for parameter sourcing. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for explicit output documentation.

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?

All six parameters are described in the Args section, with useful context such as 'Id from visio_list_shapes' and 'as shown in visio_get_shape's shape_data keys'. The name constraint 'Letters, digits and underscores only' adds concrete validation information not present in the schema.

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 operation: setting a Shape Data field on a shape, with the added behavior of creating the row if missing. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope is distinct from sibling tools like set_shape_text or add_shape.

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 gives helpful references for obtaining shape_id, page, and document values, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. Usage guidance is implied through the parameter references rather than directly stated.

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