set_text_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two important behaviors: emojis are strictly sanitized and leading/tracking are recalibrated. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'sanitized' means (stripped vs rejected) and says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or whether other text properties are preserved.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds meaningful behavioral caveats about sanitization and automatic recalibration.

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 mutation tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the core operation and two notable side effects. It could mention return behavior or error handling, but these are less critical for a straightforward setter.

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 already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, including the explicit 'must NOT contain emojis' constraint on text. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear action ('Update') and a specific resource ('existing text layer'), which immediately distinguishes it from create_text and generic update_node. The phrase 'existing' also signals this is not for creating new text.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies through 'existing text layer' that the tool is for modifying already-created text nodes, but it never names create_text, update_node, or any condition that would route an agent to this tool.

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