Set shape text

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention mutability, side effects, or whether the change requires saving. The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint false and idempotentHint false, but the description contributes nothing additional.

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 extremely concise, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and parameter details presented in a structured list. It is well-front-loaded and avoids unnecessary verbiage.

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 covers the parameters fully and states the basic action, but it lacks context on expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it fits into the larger workflow (e.g., after adding a shape or before saving). The existence of similar sibling tools makes this missing context more significant.

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 description includes explicit explanations for all four parameters (shape_id, text, page, document), providing complete coverage that the schema itself lacks. Each parameter is described with its source or usage, which fully clarifies its meaning.

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 'Replace the text of one shape' clearly states the verb and object, and specifies the scope of one shape. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'visio_replace_text', which could cause ambiguity about which to use when multiple replacements are needed.

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 such as 'visio_replace_text' or 'visio_set_shape_data'. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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