set_text

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

Given annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable context: the plugin loads current fonts first and preserves existing character styling where possible. It also discloses the return shape, which is not covered by annotations or an output schema. This goes beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.

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 sentences, with the primary action front-loaded, followed by sibling differentiation and return format. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or extraneous 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, what could be surprising (font loading and styling preservation), how to choose alternatives, and what it returns. No additional context is needed.

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%, with both nodeId and characters having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema states (e.g., 'TEXT node id' and 'New text content'), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Replace the entire text content of a TEXT node', which uses a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('TEXT node'), precisely conveying the tool's scope. It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by directing formatting tasks to set_text_properties and multi-node substitution to find_replace_text.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'For formatting (font, size, color, spacing) use set_text_properties, and to substitute text across many nodes use find_replace_text.' This explicitly states when to use alternatives, which is exemplary.

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