clean_imported_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose concrete transformations: removing double paragraph breaks, trailing spaces, manual formatting, bullet lists, and hardcoded chapter numbers. It does not, however, mention side effects such as whether edits are destructive, whether they apply to a specific frame or the whole document, or whether changes are reversible.

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 well-structured sentence with a clear front-loaded purpose and a useful list of examples. The trailing 'etc.' is mildly vague but does not introduce meaningful bloat.

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 tool has nine optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description should explain how targeting works, what the defaults do, and what the agent can expect after invocation. It does not clarify the relationship between `pageIndex`, `frameIndex`, and `useSelectedFrame`, nor does it describe the return value or whether the operation changes the document immediately.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented at the schema level. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond naming the same problem areas, which keeps it at the baseline rather than elevating it.

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 ('clean') and a clear resource ('imported text'), and it enumerates concrete typography problems it addresses. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling `fix_typography_in_selection`, so it is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 phrase 'imported text' implies the appropriate context: use this after importing text that has formatting issues. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over closely related siblings like `fix_typography_in_selection`, `find_typography_issues`, or `analyze_text_problems`.

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