put_field_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Set', which implies mutation, but does not state whether the field must already exist, whether it replaces existing content, what happens on invalid field names, or whether the operation has side effects.

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 a single front-loaded sentence followed by a minimal parameter list. There is no filler or redundant explanation, and the structure makes the core purpose immediately visible.

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 description gives enough to attempt a call: all three required parameters are named and lightly explained, and an output schema exists. However, it omits important contextual details for this domain, such as how a field name is obtained, whether the field must pre-exist, and how this differs from related field/text tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the Args section must compensate. It adds some meaning: doc_id is 'Document ID from open_document', name is 'Field name', and text is 'Text to set'. This is useful but terse, and it mostly restates the parameter names without deeper constraints or format details.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set the text content of a named field.' This clearly identifies the action and object, and 'named field' distinguishes it from table-cell or plain-text insertion tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as insert_text, replace_text, set_table_cell_text, or batch_fill_fields. It neither states typical use cases nor excludes cases where a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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