set_textbox_runs

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: idempotent with no-op short-circuit, replaces entire Paragraphs subtree (with version notes), round-trip contract, return fields, and encoding instructions (do not pre-encode).

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 front-loaded with purpose, uses a clear example, and packs essential behavioral notes into 3-4 concise sentences without waste.

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 the tool's complexity (nested runs parameter) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is impressively complete: it covers idempotency, version constraints, encoding, and return shape. A minor gap is missing details on parameter value formats.

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 coverage, the description adds meaning by detailing the 'runs' parameter structure (required text, optional styling fields) and noting to pass raw text. However, it lacks specific formats for fields like color and format (e.g., hex, named).

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 states a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('textbox content with multiple runs'), gives a concrete example with mixed styling, and distinguishes from sibling tools like set_textbox_value by focusing on multi-run content.

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 explains when to use this tool (mixed styling within one display) and mentions the round-trip contract with get_textbox. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like set_textbox_value.

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