nucleo-doc-texts-set

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

With annotations already declaring readOnly=false, destructive=false and idempotent=false, the description adds real value beyond them: it pins down the blast radius (only texts change; fields and structure are preserved) and discloses the optimistic-concurrency contract that returns a conflict when baseRevision is stale. It stops short of describing the conflict response shape or whether a retry requires re-reading the revision, which matters for a non-idempotent write.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the concurrency constraint. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every clause carries operational information.

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?

For a 4-parameter bulk write with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what is preserved, and the failure mode. The remaining gaps are the undefined publish flag and the absence of any note on the success response, which is a modest shortfall rather than a blocker.

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 only 25%, so the description must carry weight: it does clarify the origin of both id and path (from nucleo/doc-texts) and the meaning of baseRevision (must equal the current revision). It says nothing about postId or the publish flag, whose effect (whether saving also publishes) is left entirely to the agent's guess.

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?

"Rewrites in bulk the texts of a document" names a specific verb (rewrite) and resource (document texts), and the qualifier "Other fields and the structure do not change" carves out the exact scope of mutation. It reads as the counterpart to the sibling nucleo-doc-texts (the read path), so an agent can distinguish them without opening a schema.

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 prescribes a prerequisite workflow: obtain the node id and path from nucleo/doc-texts first, and baseRevision must match the current revision. It does not explicitly say when to use this instead of nucleo-doc-patch (implicitly: only for texts, not other fields) or what to do after a conflict, so exclusions are inferred rather than stated.

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