update_text_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions modification of the layout and optional save, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., missing element), licensing (arcpy.mp), or the effect when save=false (modification still occurs). This is adequate but not thorough.

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, using three sentences to convey purpose, use cases, and save behavior. Every sentence adds value 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 no annotations and 5 parameters, the description is too brief. It omits how layout selection works, behavior on missing elements, and prerequisites like project file state. The output schema exists but is not shown; still, the description should be more complete for safe usage.

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 input schema has parameter descriptions, but context signals indicate 0% coverage (likely meaning no useful descriptions). The tool description adds context for use cases but does not explain parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. For a tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 'Update' and the resource 'text content of a named layout text element', and lists specific use cases (titles, dates, etc.), making the purpose unmistakable. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which update text elements.

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 tells when to use ('automate titles, dates, subtitles... before export') and mentions the optional save behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, though no direct sibling exists.

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