batch_set_font

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add one useful behavioral trait: it applies to 'all text nodes' in a scope, indicating bulk application. However, it does not disclose whether existing font overrides are overwritten, whether changes are reversible, or how 'scope' is interpreted (e.g., recursive).

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description is underspecified for a mutation tool with no output schema or annotations. The main gap is nodeId: it is optional in the schema, but the description never states what happens when no scope is given, leaving a critical ambiguity for correct invocation.

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% with descriptions for both nodeId ('Scope') and fontFamily ('New font family'), so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the schema rather than adding new meaning; notably, it does not clarify that nodeId is optional or what the default scope is when omitted.

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 states a specific action ('Change font family') on a specific resource ('all text nodes in a scope'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_fill or type_replace_font. The scope qualifier adds precision beyond a generic 'set font' tool.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as style_text_range or type_replace_font. There is no mention of intended use cases, exclusions, or context, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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