set_text_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the Text-node restriction and batch behavior, but it does not mention side effects such as whether existing formatting is preserved, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens when a node is not a Text node. For a mutation tool this is a meaningful gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, each adding distinct value: what the tool does, when to use it, and its batch capability. No fluff or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter setter with a fully documented schema, the description covers the core invocation details, constraints, and alternative routing. It does not elaborate on error behavior or formatting effects, but those are not necessary for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully described in the input schema. The description reinforces the batch concept and node-type restriction, but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ('Set the text content of one or more Text nodes'), states the exact node type it applies to, and explicitly distinguishes itself from writeHTML replace. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from close alternatives.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this instead of writeHTML replace when only text needs to change. It also notes the Text-node-only restriction and batch support, making it clear when this tool is the right choice.

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