set_content_control_value

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it excels. It discloses refusal modes, the 'nothing changed' guarantee, auto-backup behavior, atomic validated saves, and the refusal of documents open in Word. This is far beyond minimal mutation-tool disclosure.

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 dense but tightly organized: addressing first, then type rules, then refusal cases, then backup behavior. Every sentence adds actionable information and no space is wasted.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers all the high-stakes facts an agent needs: how to select the control, valid value types, failure conditions, backup semantics, atomicity, and environment restrictions. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be restated.

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%, yet the description compensates thoroughly: it explains the tag/index exclusivity, the string/boolean/option type mapping for value, and the exact semantics of backup. Only file_path's obvious meaning is not elaborated, but the critical parameter semantics are fully covered.

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 names a precise verb and resource: 'Set one content control's value.' It immediately clarifies the two addressing modes (tag or list_content_controls index) and states 'exactly one', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_content_controls and insert_content_control.

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?

It clearly explains how to use the tool: address by tag or index, provide the right value type per control kind, and use backup=False only to skip rotation. It also gives strong when-not-to-use guidance by listing locked controls and unwritable types that are refused. It does not name an alternative tool to substitute, but the context is explicit enough.

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