text_update_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies mutation of an existing layer but does not say whether omitted properties are preserved, what happens if layerId is not a text layer, or whether the change is undoable — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One tight sentence with the addressing key front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse for a nine-parameter mutation tool, but there is no waste.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits partial-update semantics, error conditions, and undo behavior. It is not adequate to call this tool confidently beyond the happy path.

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 89%, so the schema already documents all nine properties with units and allowed values. The description only names layerId, adding nothing beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('typography properties of an existing text layer'), with the addressing key (layerId) called out. An agent can distinguish it from text_add (creates) and shape_update_style (different resource), though the description never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus text_add (for new text) or shape_update_style. The phrase 'existing text layer' implies a prerequisite but no alternatives, exclusions, or context are stated.

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