Set Text Range Style

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the action and affected properties but does not clarify whether the props object merges with or replaces existing styles, nor any requirements like nodeId referencing a text node. It provides some context but lacks behavioral depth.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, followed by a clear list of supported style properties. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The schema is complete (100% coverage), and the description gives purpose and property options. It lacks explicit notes on partial updates or error conditions, but for a focused tool with 4 well-defined parameters, the provided context is sufficient. No output schema reduces the need for return-value explanation.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, but the props parameter is generic ('Style props'). The description adds specific property names (fontSize, fontName, fills, etc.), providing valuable guidance beyond the 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 states the tool applies styles to a character range and lists specific style properties (fontSize, fontName, fills, etc.). This verb+resource phrasing clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_text (content) and set_properties (node-level properties).

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 clearly implies use for formatting a character range within a text node, and the listed properties differentiate it from nearby tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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