set_textbox_value

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. Discloses idempotency (returns {changed: false} no-op), return structure ({textbox, kind, changed}), error behavior (refuses for multi-run), and encoding details (don't pre-encode). Covers important behavioral traits beyond basic mutation.

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?

Dense but well-structured: primary action, use cases, edge case, idempotency, return type, encoding note. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Covers behavior, return, encoding, and error handling. Missing clarification of path and textbox_name parameters, which may be assumed but not explicitly defined. With no output schema, return shape is stated. Good overall but slight gap in parameter description.

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% (no parameter descriptions). Description adds meaning for value (raw text or =expression, encoding guidance) but does not explain path or textbox_name. Provides partial compensation; adequately documents the most nuanced parameter.

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 tool replaces text content of a single-run textbox. It uses specific verbs ('Replace') and resources ('text content of a single-run textbox'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool set_textbox_runs for multi-run cases.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete examples (swap label, update parameter, replace aggregate). States when not to use (multiple runs) and redirects to set_textbox_runs. Also gives encoding usage instruction.

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