Type text

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the `id` form replaces existing contents, but the remark that 'the edit is ended again' is ambiguous about whether edit mode is committed or exited, leaving an important side effect underspecified.

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?

It is a single sentence with the primary action front-loaded, which is good. The trailing parenthetical ('the text is edited and the edit ended again') is opaque enough to cost clarity rather than earn its place.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with annotations already conveying destructiveness and no output schema, the description covers the two invocation modes and the role of `id`. It nonetheless leaves error/precondition behavior (no active edit, invalid layer id) and the `text` parameter's semantics unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that `id` identifies the text layer to replace and that omitting it targets the in-progress edit, which is valuable; however it says nothing about `text` beyond its name and does not fully compensate for the zero-coverage schema.

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 names a specific verb (type) and two concrete targets: the text currently being edited, or the contents of text layer `id`. That distinguishes it reasonably from siblings such as `key`, `set_properties`, and `run_command`. The parenthetical clause about the edit being ended is unclear, but the core action is identifiable.

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?

It implicitly tells you there are two modes (active edit session vs. named layer), which is real usage guidance, but it never says when to prefer this over `key`, `set_properties`, or `run_command`, nor what happens if no edit session exists. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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