geometry.set_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Set text object fields,' which implies mutation, but omits essential details such as whether the operation is destructive, what permissions are needed, or how existing fields are affected. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at one sentence. While brevity is generally positive, here it omits critical information that should be present for a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The structure does not front-load essential details, making it less useful than it could be.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's role in the broader context, when to call it, what the parameters do, or what the expected outcome is. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the description alone.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for its 8 parameters. The description adds zero clarification about the meaning, format, or usage of parameters like 'body', 'size', 'align_x', etc. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 'Set text object fields' clearly indicates the verb 'set' and the resource 'text object fields'. It is distinct from sibling tools like geometry.create_text (which creates) and text.* tools (which deal with text files). This specificity helps an AI agent understand the tool's core action.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about appropriate scenarios. For example, it does not clarify that the text object must exist beforehand or contrast with geometry.create_text. This leaves the agent without decision-making support.

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