edit_text

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses partial-update semantics and that a status dict is returned, but says nothing about what happens with a missing layer_name, whether the edit is undoable, needed permissions, or what the status dict contains on failure.

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?

It is front-loaded with a single purpose sentence followed by a scannable parameter list, with no filler. The repeated '(omit to leave unchanged)' on four entries is slightly redundant, though it does reinforce the optionality.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the inputs adequately but omits error conditions and meaningful return detail, saying only 'Returns status dict'. An agent can call it, but cannot anticipate failure modes.

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%, so the description is the only documentation for these six parameters, and it does supply each one plus the image_index default of 0 and the units for size (pixels). It falls short on value formats, e.g. what form color takes (hex, name) or where valid font families come from (list_fonts is never referenced).

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Edit an existing text layer's content or formatting'), which separates it from sibling mutation tools like set_layer_properties and from add_text, since it operates on an existing text layer. It never names those alternatives explicitly, so differentiation is implied by the resource rather than stated.

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?

Use is only implied: the 'omit to leave unchanged' notes convey that this is a partial-update tool, but there is no guidance on when to choose it over add_text or set_layer_properties, and no stated precondition that the text layer must already exist.

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