text_style

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect of making the style current and gives a font example, but it does not mention overwrite semantics, error behavior, or return value. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Create/set', and contains no unnecessary words. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the primary purpose and the key side effect. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., font file availability) but remains sufficient for a basic setup tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description adds meaning by providing an example for the font parameter ('isocpeur.ttf for ISO drawings'). However, it does not elaborate on the required 'name' parameter beyond the obvious implication of a style name, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 'Create/set' with a resource 'text style' and clearly states the font and the side effect of making it current. This distinguishes it from siblings like draw_text, create_layer, and set_current_color.

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 implies when to use the tool (creating/setting a text style and making it current) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It provides clear context but falls short of explicitly naming when not to use it, unlike the get_calls example.

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