Set text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation ('Sets') on a TEXT node, but does not say whether existing characters are replaced, what happens if the node is not TEXT, what permissions are required, or what the call returns. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, and targeting mechanism are conveyed immediately. The length is appropriate for a two-parameter tool and every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description gives enough to attempt a basic call: it names the required text input and optional node targeting. It remains incomplete on behavioral impact and parameter constraints, but the core invocation is covered.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must add semantics. It clarifies that nodeId is optional and falls back to the current selection, which is useful, and 'characters' is implicitly the text to set. However, it provides no format, constraints, or behavior for the characters parameter, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Sets characters') and resource ('TEXT node'), and explains the targeting mechanism (nodeId or current selection). It is clear on its own but never distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_text_content or set_multiple_text_contents, so it does not reach a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_text_content, find_and_replace_text, or set_multiple_text_contents. The parenthetical only explains how to target a node, not when this tool is appropriate or when another tool should be chosen.

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