style_text_graphic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'modify' but never states whether omitted properties are left unchanged (partial update) or reset, whether the tool fails on non-text clips, whether changes are undoable, or what it returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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, naming the verb, the resource and the affected properties. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than over-long.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify partial-update semantics, preconditions (clip must be a text/graphic clip) and how it relates to set_clip_transform. None of that is present, leaving meaningful ambiguity for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the 7 parameters documented including units and ranges (positionX 0-1, opacity 0-100). The description echoes the same field list, so it adds little beyond the schema but is not needed to. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Modify') and a specific resource ('an existing text/graphic clip on the timeline'), plus the four editable properties. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as set_clip_transform or set_mogrt_property, which overlap on position/scale/opacity.

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 word 'existing' implies a clip must already be on the timeline (so pair with add_text_graphic first), which is a useful implied constraint. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternative tools like set_clip_transform, and no statement about what happens for non-text clips.

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