design_set_text_shadow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing mutation behavior. It says only that the tool enables or configures a shadow; it does not state what happens when enabled=false, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, or how existing shadow values are handled.

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 wasted words. It is efficient, though quite bare for a six-parameter mutation tool.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. The schema fully documents the fields, but the description does not explain behavioral effects, prerequisites, or what to expect when toggling or configuring the shadow.

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%, and all six parameters are documented in the schema, including blur, color, enabled, layerId, offsetX, and offsetY. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the general concept of a drop shadow, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Enable or configure') and resource ('drop shadow on a text layer'), making the basic action clear. It narrows scope to text layers, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as design_add_drop_shadow or design_apply_text_style.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like design_add_drop_shadow, which also involves drop shadows. It also omits prerequisites such as whether the target must already be a text layer or whether the layer must exist.

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