set_text_properties

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, which are consistent with a non-destructive mutation. The description adds transparency revealing that font properties trigger font loading, and it specifies the return structure { ok, nodeId }. No contradiction with annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loading the main action, then systematically listing properties with category headers. Every sentence serves a purpose: overview, detail, usage note, and return value. 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 10 parameters and nested objects, the description covers the core functionality, parameter groups, a key dependency, and the return. It lacks error handling info (e.g., font loading failure) but for a property setter it is adequately complete. The absence of an output schema is compensated by describing the return.

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 80% (8 of 10 params described). The description adds value beyond the schema by grouping parameters into categories, explaining the dependency between maxLines and textTruncation, and noting that omitted fields remain unchanged. This clarifies partial update semantics.

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 sets typography and layout/overflow properties on a TEXT node, and lists specific properties. This distinguishes it from siblings like set_text (which likely sets content) and create_text (which creates nodes). The verb 'set' and resource 'text properties' are specific.

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 good context: it notes that font properties load required fonts, that any field can be omitted, and that maxLines applies only when textTruncation is ENDING. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like set_text, though the distinction is implied.

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