gimp_edit_text

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say which attributes get modified, that omitted parameters probably leave existing values untouched, or whether the edit is undoable. It merely restates 'modify' with no operational context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is concise only because it is under-specified; there is no second sentence earning its place with required 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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description is far too thin — an agent cannot learn from it which fields are editable, what the enum options for justify mean, or what the tool returns.

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 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not — it never mentions font, size, text, color, or justify, nor explains that only layer_id is required and the rest are optional overrides.

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 verb ('Modifica') and resource ('una capa de texto existente'), which distinguishes it from the sibling gimp_add_text (creates text). It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the create-vs-edit distinction is inferable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of gimp_add_text or gimp_set_layer, no prerequisites (does the layer need to already be a text layer?), and no mention of what happens if the layer_id points to a non-text layer.

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