fix_typography_in_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does explain the main effect: fixing typographic elements in a selected text/story. However, it does not mention irreversibility, whether changes are applied in place, or the precise handling of 'other typographic elements', leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 very concise and front-loaded. The first sentence names the operation and target, and the second briefly enumerates the corrections. There is no redundant information or padding.

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?

Given the 7 optional parameters and no required fields, the description is minimally adequate. The schema covers all parameters, and the description covers purpose, but the interaction between selection-related parameters (pageIndex, frameIndex, useSelectedFrame) is not clarified, and usage relative to sibling tools is not addressed.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds only high-level context about date, quote, and dash corrections, and does not clarify the selection mechanics among pageIndex, frameIndex, and useSelectedFrame 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?

The description states a specific action ('Fix typography') on a clear resource ('selected text or story') and lists the corrections made (dates, quotes, dashes). It is clear and functionally specific, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like find_typography_issues or clean_imported_text.

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 'selected text or story' implies the tool operates on an active selection, giving some usage context. However, it does not explain when to prefer this over related tools such as find_typography_issues or clean_imported_text, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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