set_textbox_action

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

With no annotations, the description discloses idempotency and the no-save behavior, and explains that target_expression accepts literal or expression. It lacks details on return format and permissions but adequately covers core behavioral traits.

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 two sentences, with the first covering the main functionality and the second adding idempotency. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description covers the action types and drillthrough parameters but omits explanation of path and textbox_name formats, and does not mention the need for an editing transaction (implied by siblings like start_editing_transaction).

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%. The description adds meaning to action_type by listing the three values, explains target_expression format, and describes drillthrough_parameters as a list of name-value dicts. However, path and textbox_name are not explained beyond being used for identification.

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 it sets a textbox action to three specific types (Hyperlink, Drillthrough, BookmarkLink), using specific verbs and resource names. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_textbox_value by focusing solely on action modification.

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?

It explains the three action types and their purposes (URL, drillthrough with parameters, bookmark jump), providing guidance on when to use each. However, it does not compare with sibling tools like set_chart_series_action or mention when not to use this tool.

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