update_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether omitted parameters leave values unchanged or reset them to the schema null defaults, nor whether changes require specific permissions or are undoable (the sibling 'undo' hints at a stack but it is not stated).

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, so it is structurally clean. The brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than from efficiency, which keeps it out of the upper range.

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 nine-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, a one-line description is drastically inadequate. An agent cannot safely determine what each argument does or how partial updates behave from this definition alone.

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 must compensate and instead adds nothing. Text, color, font_size, position, box, start and end, and the required project/overlay_id identifiers are never explained, and the critical partial-update semantics of the nullable defaults are left ambiguous.

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 verb 'Change' plus the resource 'a text overlay' identifies the operation and implicitly separates it from siblings add_text and remove_text. But 'any property' is vague hand-waving rather than a statement of what is actually being modified, and the agent gets no sense of scope or limits.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (remove_text to delete, add_text to create), and no stated prerequisites such as whether the overlay must already exist or whether a render is needed afterward. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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