annotate_typography

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain whether adding annotations mutates the node, creates separate annotation objects, overwrites existing annotations, or is purely non-destructive. The distinction between annotating typography and changing typography is not made explicit.

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?

One compact sentence communicates the operation and scope with no filler. The key verb and target are front-loaded, and the parenthetical property list efficiently adds useful detail.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves critical context missing: the target node type is ambiguous, the practical effect is unclear, and there is no guidance on how annotation tools relate to style-modification tools. More behavioral and usage context is needed.

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%, which normally warrants a baseline of 3, but there is a meaningful ambiguity: the schema describes nodeId as 'Frame to annotate' while the tool description says annotations are added 'to text nodes'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond this and does not resolve whether the caller should pass a text node ID or a frame ID.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('typography annotations ... to text nodes'), and enumerates the relevant properties (font, size, weight, line-height). This helps distinguish it from sibling annotate tools like annotate_spacing and annotate_colors, though it does not explicitly contrast with styling tools such as style_text_range.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like style_text_range, batch_set_font, type_scale_apply, or annotate_hierarchy. The only usage signal is implied by the word 'annotations', but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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