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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say that supplying 'content' overwrites existing text irreversibly, whether omitted typography fields are preserved, or how multiple shape_ids are handled. No contradiction with annotations, but no added behavioral value either.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — six words cannot carry a nine-parameter destructive mutation.

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?

With 9 parameters, zero schema documentation, no output schema, and a destructive write, the definition should explain at minimum the target shape semantics and what content replacement does. It leaves an agent unable to call this correctly without trial and error.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails. Only a loose mapping is implied ('text content' → content, 'typography' → font_* fields); units for font_size/line_height/letter_spacing, the meaning of the enums, and the role of the required shape_ids array are all unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Change') and two resource classes ('text content or typography'), so an agent knows this edits existing text rather than creating it. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as text_on_path, measure_text, or set_style, and never mentions that it targets shapes by ID.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like text_on_path (text along a path) or set_style (styling), and no mention of prerequisites such as the target shapes needing to already contain text. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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