set_text_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that all distances are in millimetres regardless of document units, that dry_run=true previews without writing, and that setting dry_run=false requires passing expected_sha256. It also limits to 'free PCB text shapes'. However, it does not mention behavior for locked objects or overwriting existing attributes, so not full transparency.

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-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value: scoping, units, schema reference, and execution workflow. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The description provides a clear workflow for safe execution and key constraints, but the parameter space is large (11 params) and many are unexplained. The output schema may indicate return values, but parameter semantics remain under-specified for a complex styling 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the dry_run and expected_sha256 workflow and clarifies that distances (font_size, font_width) are in millimetres. However, it leaves other parameters (selector, mirrored, allow_locked, alignment, path, txid) undefined. With 11 parameters, this is a substantial gap.

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 the verb+resource: "Set verified style attributes on free PCB text shapes." It distinguishes this tool from siblings like set_text_visibility and move_board_texts by specifying it handles style attributes for free text shapes, and it uses a specific workflow (dry_run + expected_sha256).

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 a clear workflow: use dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false and pass the expected_sha256 after inspecting the preview. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the scoping to "free PCB text shapes" implies when not to use it. This is clear context, though not exhaustive exclusions.

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