text_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that the target must be an 'editable' text layer, but says nothing about which attributes can be mutated, what happens to existing content, permission/auth needs, or reversibility—significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, which is good. But its brevity reflects missing content rather than disciplined conciseness, so it is only minimally adequate.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and a mutation operation, the description leaves the agent without the context needed to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0% across six parameters (text, size, color, font_name, layer_id, session_id). The description adds no information about any of these, so an agent gets no help mapping intent to parameters beyond guessing from names.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('existing editable GIMP text layer'), making the operation identifiable. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like layer_update or text_create, so an agent must infer the boundary between them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as text_create (for new layers) or layer_update (for non-text attributes). The only implicit signal is the word 'existing', which contradicts nothing but routes nothing either.

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