set_text_properties

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: font loading side effect, partial update behavior (any field omitted leaves unchanged), dependency of maxLines on textTruncation, and a return value ('Returns { ok, nodeId }'). This goes well beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss error cases or permissions.

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 compact and well-organized. It uses a colon to separate the main verb from property categories, lists all fields in a readable flow, and includes only necessary caveats. Every sentence adds value (font loading, omit behavior, maxLines dependency, return format), with no redundant or filler 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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers a lot: it defines the target node type, groups all parameters, explains return format, and notes the dependency between maxLines and textTruncation. It lacks detail on error handling or invalid input behavior, but for a mutation tool with comprehensive schema annotations, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 83%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by grouping parameters into categories, explaining paragraphSpacing/paragraphIndent semantics (paragraphs split at '\n'), clarifying textTruncation (ellipsis) and maxLines line clamp, and stating that all typography fields trigger font loading. It also explicitly states the omit-to-leave-unchanged behavior, which is not in the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Set a TEXT node's typography and layout/overflow properties.' It clearly enumerates the categories (typography, layout/overflow) and lists fields, distinguishing it from siblings like set_text (content) or set_fills (fills). It explicitly states the target node type (TEXT), making the tool's scope 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 provides clear usage context: it groups properties into typography and layout, notes that omitted fields leave values unchanged, and gives a conditional rule ('maxLines applies when textTruncation is ENDING'). It also mentions prerequisite behavior ('these load the required fonts first'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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