Edit Text

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that only specified properties are changed (omit to keep values), which is useful but does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions required, or error conditions. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides minimal extra context.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and conditional behavior. Every sentence is necessary and no word is wasted. The structure supports quick scanning.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, mutation) and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and parameter interaction well. It could mention the return value or success indication, but this is minor given the standard convention of mutation tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that omitted parameters retain current values, which is not obvious from the schema alone. This compensates beyond just repeating descriptions.

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 clearly states it modifies an existing text layer's content or style, distinguishing it from add_text (which creates a new text layer) and other layer modification tools. The verb 'modify' paired with 'existing text layer' provides precise action and resource.

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 advises using get_layers to find text layer names, which is helpful context. However, it does not explicitly state that this tool only works on text layers or when not to use it (e.g., for non-text layers).

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