design_apply_text_style

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 does not state whether styling is a partial update or replacement, how unspecified properties behave, or what side effects occur; it also mentions 'shadow' even though no shadow parameter exists in the schema.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The field list is somewhat long, and the unsupported 'shadow' item keeps it from being fully disciplined.

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?

This is a 15-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to carry more operational context. It does not explain partial-update behavior, defaults, return expectations, or how it relates to sibling tools that handle shadow and text-content changes.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents the parameters thoroughly. The description enumerates many styling fields but adds little beyond the schema, and its mention of 'shadow' is not backed by any parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: applying styling to an existing text layer, and enumerates many style categories. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic layer tools, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like design_set_text or design_set_text_shadow.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as design_set_text, design_set_text_shadow, design_apply_style, or design_update_layer. The phrase 'existing text layer' implies a prerequisite, but no exclusions or sibling routing are provided.

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