Set Text Style

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'any combination of properties'. It does not clarify that omitted properties remain unchanged, which is key for safe usage. 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope using an ellipsis to imply additional properties.

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 has 12 parameters and nested objects, and while the schema covers all, the description lacks practical context about batch behavior (e.g., unspecified properties remain unchanged) and the role of required parameters like nodeName. Output schema exists but is not leveraged.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only lists property categories without explaining how parameters interact or format specifics already in 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 clearly states the tool sets typography properties on a text node, using a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('typography properties on a text node'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like text_set_content (which sets text string) and node_set_* tools for other visual 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 implies usage for modifying typography on existing text nodes but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., text_set_content for content, node_set_fill for fills). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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