update_screen_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses preservation of highlight styling when runs are used, the optional highlightPhrase behavior, and the prerequisite of get_screens. This provides good insight beyond what the schema offers.

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?

Three sentences, each efficient and valuable: purpose and scope, styling behavior and prerequisite, optional parameter. No wasted words.

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?

Covers key aspects: operation, target layer, styling preservation, optional parameter, need for prior call. Lacks detail on locale and other params' effects, but overall adequate for a fairly complex mutation 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 coverage is 50%. The description adds meaning to highlightPhrase (controlling which word gets accent) and implies that layerId and styling info come from get_screens. It does not detail locale or other params, but compensates well for the 50% coverage.

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 tool updates marketing text on a specific type of layer, distinguishing it from in-app UI text. The sibling tools are unrelated (app store pushes, screen images, etc.), so it stands out as the only text update tool.

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 advises calling get_screens first to understand styling, and explains the optional highlightPhrase parameter. It implies when to use (update marketing text) and what not to use for (in-app UI), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives, though none are needed.

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