update_text_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies the selected layout and optionally saves the .aprx project when save=true. This is valuable behavioral info. However, it could mention that it only works with existing text elements and does not create new ones.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that front-load the core purpose, follow with use cases, and end with a behavioral note about saving. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 explains the tool's effect and when to use it, but it does not mention the return value or error handling. Since there is no output schema in the provided definition, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns (e.g., success indication). Also, prerequisites like the layout and element name must exist are implied but not explicit.

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 includes detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'save', 'new_text', 'layout_name'), providing clear semantics. The tool description does not add additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 action (update text content of a named layout text element) and specifies the technology (arcpy.mp layout elements). It lists concrete use cases (titles, dates, subtitles, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools which perform different operations like exporting layouts or modifying layers.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'before export' to automate various text labels. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the list of siblings does not include a direct alternative for updating text elements, making the guidance adequate.

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