set_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely fails it. It does not say whether unspecified properties are preserved, whether the change is reversible (undo), what errors occur on a non-text layer, or how project scoping works.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no filler. However, given the 13-parameter surface, the extreme brevity edges toward under-specification rather than discipline.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves most behavioral and parameter context unstated. It is not sufficient to let an agent invoke the tool correctly without schema inspection.

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% for 13 parameters, so the description must compensate but only gestures at two vague families ('text or style'). It adds no meaning for bold, font, size, align, color, stroke_color, stroke_width, line_spacing, max_width, italic, layer, or project.

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?

States a specific verb ('Change') plus resource ('a text layer's text or style'), making it clearly a mutator of existing text layers. It contrasts implicitly with sibling add_text, though it never names alternatives explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. 'the layer must already be a text layer created via add_text'), and no distinction from set_layer or add_text. The intended usage is only weakly implied by 'a text layer's'.

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