edit_text_frame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Edit properties' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose whether changes are reversible, whether the frame must be on a specific page, what happens if frameIndex is invalid, or whether the tool updates only provided properties or resets unspecified ones. The pageIndex parameter hints at page context but the description doesn't explain its role.

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?

Two sentences with a clear workflow hint. The WORKFLOW prefix is useful and front-loaded. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more explicit about which properties are editable.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the prerequisite lookup step, but doesn't clarify behavior on partial updates, error cases, or how textColor/fontFamily values should be formatted. The sibling list shows related style tools, but the description doesn't route to them.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the workflow context for frameIndex, but doesn't clarify ambiguous parameters like textColor format (hex? name?) or whether content replaces all text or inserts. The alignment enum is self-documenting. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does most of the work.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Edit properties of an existing text frame.' It distinguishes itself from create_text_frame (creation) and get_text_content (reading), though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling. The workflow hint about finding frameIndex adds context.

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 WORKFLOW instruction explicitly tells the agent to first call list_text_frames() or get_selected_objects() to find the correct frameIndex. This is clear usage guidance for a prerequisite step, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like modify_character_style or apply_paragraph_style.

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