text_update

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

Describes the HTTP PUT method, the role of body as rendered HTML, and explicitly states reversibility. Adds context beyond annotations (which already show idempotency and non-destructive nature). 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?

Two concise sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and method, followed by parameter explanation and reuse note.

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?

Adequately describes the tool's function for a simple update operation with no output schema. Missing details about response or relation to pages, but sufficient for an idempotent, non-destructive tool with clear parameter roles.

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?

Adds meaning for the 'body' parameter (raw HTML for Liquid tag), but schema description coverage is only 33% and the description does not explain 'site' or 'text_id' beyond their names. Partially compensates for low 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?

Clearly states the action ('Update a text body') with HTTP method and resource path. Specifies that the body parameter is raw HTML for a Liquid tag, distinguishing it from sibling tools like page_update or content_partial_update.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like page_update or text_get. Mentions reversibility but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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