Set Text DAT source

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

The description discloses that this tool 'replaces' content, which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations (which only state idempotentHint and destructiveHint). It clarifies that the operation overwrites the existing body, adding useful context. However, it does not cover whether the operator must already exist or what happens to missing paths.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the purposeful verb 'Replace' and lists the affected DAT types. Every word adds value with no unnecessary filler.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema) and low schema coverage, the description is complete enough for the core action but lacks important context. It does not explain 'expectedText' or specify whether the path must reference an existing operator, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 only 33% parameter description coverage (only 'path' is described). The tool description implies that 'text' is the new body content, but it does not explain 'expectedText' or add syntax details. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meaning incomplete.

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's function with a specific verb ('Replace') and specific resource types ('Text DAT, GLSL DAT, Script DAT, or callback DAT body'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like td_set_parameters, which target parameter values, and td_create_operator, which creates operators.

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 by listing the DAT types it applies to, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it, such as for setting operator parameters or creating operators, leaving the guidance implicit.

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