set_text

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a mutation without destructiveness. The description adds that fonts are loaded before setting characters, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is reversible or what happens to existing content beyond replacement. Given the annotations, the description provides moderate added value.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second adds a behavioral note and return value. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff.

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 low complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the operation's effect, a side effect (font loading), and the return format. It could be improved by explicitly noting that the node must be a TEXT node and what happens if the node ID is invalid, but it is largely complete for a simple 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions ('TEXT node id to update' and 'New text content'). The main description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 for high coverage, and the description satisfies this without exceeding it.

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 'Replace a TEXT node's characters,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'set_text_properties' (which likely handles other attributes) and 'find_replace_text' (a search-and-replace operation). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 mentions that the plugin loads the node's fonts first, which implies a prerequisite or side effect. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_text_properties' or 'find_replace_text', nor does it provide guidance on when not to use it.

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