set_text_range

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

Discloses that ranges apply in order (later overrides earlier on overlap), fonts are loaded automatically, and returns { ok, nodeId }. Annotations only indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, so the description adds substantial behavioral 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?

Single sentence, but it is long and packs many details. It front-loads the purpose and then enumerates parameters. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence earns its place.

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 lack of output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value ({ ok, nodeId }). It covers ordering, font loading, and parameter details. No gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 meaning by explaining that nodeId must be an existing TEXT node, ranges are char offsets with start/end, and enumerates all supported run properties with examples (e.g., 'makes the run bold/italic' for fontName). This goes beyond 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 clearly states it styles character ranges of an existing TEXT node, with concrete examples (link, bold, colored span, list). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_text, set_text, and set_text_properties by specifying its role as the 'write-side mirror' for inline rich 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?

Explicitly guides when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Set the whole node first with create_text / set_text; use set_text_properties for node-level typography & overflow.' This helps the agent decide when to apply this tool versus others.

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