Set Text Style

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

With annotations providing idempotentHint and openWorldHint, the description adds a little extra context by noting 'any combination' can be set, but it does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or permission requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and core subject. It is concise with no redundant information.

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 tool is complex (12 parameters, nested objects, enums) but the rich input schema and presence of an output schema cover parameter details and return values. The description effectively conveys the purpose and flexibility ('any combination'), though it does not address edge cases like transactional behavior. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and use the tool 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 100%, so all 12 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description lists property categories (font, size, weight, spacing, decoration) that map to parameters but adds no technical detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and clearly identifies the resource ('typography properties on a text node'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like text_set_content (which changes text content) and node_apply_style (which applies a named style) by focusing on direct typography property manipulation.

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 implies usage when needing to set typography properties, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like text_set_content or style_list. No exclusion criteria are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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