text_applyFont

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether unspecified font attributes are preserved, whether the operation is undoable, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur on the target range.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the operation and scope with zero wasted words. Appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits prerequisites, side effects, default-document behavior, and formatting-preservation rules. It covers only the high-level purpose, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it safely.

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 low (38%). The description clarifies the range parameters (startChar/endChar/paragraphIndex) and the font attributes (fontFamily/fontStyle/pointSize), but leaves storyIndex and document_id semantics to the schema and adds no range-convention details. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 (Apply), resource (font family, style, size), and scope (range of characters within a paragraph). An agent can distinguish this from paragraph-level formatting tools, though no sibling is named 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 guidance on when to use this versus text_applyCharStyle, text_applyParagraphStyle, or other formatting tools. Usage is only implied by the description's purpose, with no exclusions or alternatives.

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