design_set_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether updating an existing layer overwrites other properties (all 11 non-required params have defaults, so it is unclear whether omitting them resets style), whether the replaced text is recoverable, or what permission/selection state is required for a mutation.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the behavior-defining condition is front-loaded in the second sentence. Slightly redundant with the schema's layerId description but not wasteful.

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?

For a 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description says almost nothing about side effects, return value, or interaction with existing layer styling. The most important open question — whether unspecified style params get reset on update — is left unanswered.

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 formatting details (defaults, enums for align/kerning/renderMode) are already fully documented. The description reinforces the single most consequential parameter, layerId, with its create-vs-update semantics, which is a meaningful addition over the schema's own wording.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (add/update a text layer) and explicitly states the branch condition: layerId present means update, absent means create. An agent can tell exactly what this does relative to design_apply_text_style or design_convert_text_to_paths.

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 create-vs-update split is spelled out clearly, which is real usage guidance. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this over design_apply_text_style, design_set_type_scale, or design_add_component, and no prerequisites or constraints are stated.

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