Editar texto

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states that unspecified fields are preserved, which is useful, but it omits critical details like required permissions, reversibility, and the fact that the 'layer' parameter is required. The mention of additional operations (move, rotate, effects, blend) is helpful context but lacks any caveats about their interaction with other settings.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and lists additional capabilities compactly. It avoids unnecessary words, though the parenthetical is slightly ambiguous and the list could be clearer.

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?

Given the complexity (22 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations) and low schema coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits essential information about parameter usage, required fields, and interaction with other tools, leaving an agent ill-equipped to invoke it correctly.

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 only 32%, so the description would need to compensate, but it provides no details about any parameter. It does not explain the many options (runs, style, effects, opacity, etc.) or their formats. The high parameter count (22) makes this a significant gap.

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 says it changes the content and/or style of an existing text layer while preserving unspecified fields, and mentions additional capabilities (move, rotate, effects, blend). However, the parenthetical '(conserva lo que no indiques)' is ambiguous about merge semantics, and unlike 'ps_edit_text' the title 'Editar texto' is tautological. It does not clearly differentiate from siblings like ps_set_layer.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sentence 'También mover, rotar, efectos y mezcla' hints at breadth but doesn't specify when those capabilities should be used instead of other tools like ps_set_layer or ps_layer_style. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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