Set Text Contents

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds crucial behavioral context about per-item validation and partial_success handling. This goes beyond annotations by telling the agent exactly how to react to partial success, which is essential for correct invocation. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the operation, the second provides critical success-handling guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the existing output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It captures the batch aspect, validation, and the critical partial_success retry protocol. No missing prerequisites or behavioral caveats are evident.

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 100%, with each property (nodeId, nodeName, characters) having a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as edge cases or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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 sets the text of one or more text nodes, using specific verbs and resources ('Set the text', 'text nodes') and highlights the batched, per-item-validated nature. This distinguishes it from siblings like text_set_style and node_set_fill, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for updating text content across one or more nodes, and provides explicit guidance on handling partial_success: treat as incomplete, report failures/skips, and retry non-success items. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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