Edit all root annotation text fields

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: preservation of font/metrics/alternative text/opaque bits, refusal of certain label types, original-offset semantics for sequential operations, and printable Latin-1 restriction. Complements destructiveHint without contradicting it.

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?

Four tight, front-loaded sentences that each earn their place: purpose, preservation, exclusion, ordering, encoding. No filler.

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, the description covers scope, side effects, ordering, and encoding constraints. Minor gap: destructive behavior and confirmation/preview semantics are left to annotations and schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces offset semantics but adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verbs (create, reposition, restyle, delete) and resource (root free DOC annotations), distinguishing it from siblings like gdf_geometry or gdf_declarations. Lacks explicit contrast with closest siblings such as gdf_text_format_edit.

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?

Description implies usage through scope constraints ('root free DOC annotations', 'refuses electrical labels or instance/pin text') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative tools for those excluded cases.

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