text_setVerticalJustification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and largely fails it: it does not say the operation mutates the document, whether it is undoable, what happens if the frameIndex is out of range, or what errors surface. Only the word 'Set' hints at a mutation.

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 with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise — the one clause does not carry enough information for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

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?

With four parameters, 25% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin for correct invocation. An agent gets no guidance on indexing semantics, enum behavior, or failure modes.

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 25% (just document_id is documented) and the description adds no meaning to pageIndex, frameIndex, or justification beyond implying a text frame. The justification enum values (top/center/bottom/justify) are never explained, so the description does not compensate 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 (Set) and resource (vertical justification) scoped to a text frame, which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling text_set* tools (setColumns, setTextWrap, setDropCap, etc.), so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives (e.g., it never mentions the frame must already exist or that text_setContent/text_addFrame are the creation paths). Usage can only be inferred from the name.

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