ae_styleText

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-destructive, non-read-only mutation scoped to the local app, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it operates on an existing layer and can optionally replace text, which is useful. It does not disclose whether unset properties are preserved or reset, what happens if the target is not a text layer, or the accepted color format.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every token names a real capability. The parenthetical stroke triple is dense and slightly cryptic, and the lack of any second sentence for caveats is a structural gap rather than a conciseness problem.

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 an 18-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and most parameter names well. Gaps remain on behavior an agent needs: whether unspecified properties persist, the expected color string format, and failure modes when the layer is not text.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it maps most of the 18 parameters to plain-language concepts (font, size, color, tracking, leading, justification, caps, faux bold/italic, the strokeColor/strokeWidth/strokeOverFill triple, optional new text). Only baselineShift is left unmentioned, and value formats (e.g. color syntax, tracking units) are still undocumented.

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 verb 'restyle' plus the resource 'an existing text layer' is specific, and the enumerated property list (font, size, color, tracking, leading, justification, caps, faux bold/italic, stroke) pins down exactly what kind of restyling. The word 'existing' distinguishes it from the create-oriented siblings ae_addTextLayer and ae_addTextAnimator without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool for changing properties on a text layer that already exists. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no exclusion such as 'does not create layers — use ae_addTextLayer', and no statement of prerequisites (an active comp, a layer that is actually a text layer).

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