set_textbox_tooltip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses idempotency, the ability to clear the tooltip by passing an empty string, and the return value structure. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authorization needs, or the requirement of an editing transaction, which is common for such modification tools.

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 two short sentences. The key action is front-loaded ('Set <Textbox>/<ToolTip>'), and every phrase adds value: literal/expression, clearing, idempotency, and return value. There is no superfluous information.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential behaviors: setting, clearing, idempotence, and return format. However, it lacks context about the editing transaction requirement and does not clarify the exact meaning of 'path' (report path or file path?). This is adequate but not fully complete for all use cases.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'text_or_expression' parameter by specifying it can be literal text or an expression with a leading '=' and that passing '' clears. However, it does not explain the 'path' or 'textbox_name' parameters, relying on context. This partial compensation brings the score to 3.

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 'Set', the resource 'Textbox/ToolTip', and specifies that it can accept literal text or expressions starting with '='. It also clarifies that passing an empty string clears the tooltip. This is very specific and distinct from other sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from set_textbox_value or set_textbox_runs.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like being in an editing transaction, nor does it contrast with other textbox-setting tools. The only usage hint is the mention of idempotency, which is a behavioral trait rather than usage guidance.

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