sap_set_textedit

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Write text', confirming mutation but does not disclose whether text overwrites or appends, nor any permission or state requirements. The description does not contradict annotations and provides minimal extra behavioral context.

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 one sentence with a dash for elaboration, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it could be better structured by adding parameter explanations as separate bullet points, but overall it is efficient.

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 parameters, and an output schema exists. The description covers the purpose and content type but omits how to locate the textedit_id and whether the write replaces or appends. While not incomplete for an expert, a new agent would need more detail.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only states the tool writes text into a GuiTextedit and gives content examples but fails to explain the 'textedit_id' parameter (how to obtain it, what it represents) or any constraints on the 'text' parameter (e.g., length, newlines). This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 'Write' and the resource 'text into a multiline text editor (GuiTextedit)'. It provides examples like 'long texts, notes, comments, document text', which distinguishes it from siblings like sap_read_textedit (read) and sap_set_field (single-line).

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 implies usage for multiline text editors but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sap_set_field. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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