photoshop_set_text_font

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully explains that font names are resolved via app.fonts and that either display or PostScript names are accepted. However, it does not mention failure conditions (e.g., no active text layer, invalid font name) or reversibility, leaving minor behavioral gaps.

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 three short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the core action, then covers name-resolution nuances, then points to the discovery tool. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 simple setter with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it names the target (active text layer), explains accepted font identifiers, and directs the agent to the discovery tool. It does not cover error behavior or undo options, but these are not essential for a low-risk property change.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the fontName display/PostScript distinction and adds 'resolved via app.fonts,' but the schema already documents font names, point size, and document_id behavior. The added semantic value is modest.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set font family and size for active text layer.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling text-editing tools (set_text_color, set_text_alignment, update_text_content) by naming exactly which text property it modifies.

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 conveys clear usage context: it targets the active text layer and tells the agent to use photoshop_list_fonts to discover valid font names. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other text styling siblings, but the property-specific wording makes the intent clear.

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