font_glyph_insert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation at the cursor but says nothing about whether the operation is undoable, what happens if the target document lacks the font, whether an active insertion point is required, or any error behavior. Only the minimal 'inserts at cursor' trait is disclosed.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits the fontName/glyphId semantics, preconditions, and any behavioral consequences that an agent needs to call 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 33% – only document_id is documented in the schema. The description mentions 'glyph' but does not clarify whether glyphId is a Unicode codepoint, a glyph index in the font, or something else, nor does it explain that fontName selects the source font. The two undocumented parameters receive no compensating detail.

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 names a specific verb (insert) and resource (a special glyph) plus the target location (cursor position), so the core action is understandable. However, it does not explain what distinguishes a 'special glyph' from normal text insertion, nor does it differentiate this tool from font-related siblings like font_find or font_change. Purpose is identifiable but thin.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as text_setContent or text_applyFont, no prerequisites (e.g. a text frame must be active), and no mention of the cursor/selection requirement. The agent is left to infer all usage conditions.

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