modify_text_properties

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. 'Modify' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified properties, or any rate limits or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient phrase ('Modify text formatting properties') with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core function without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity (mutation tool with 3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., mutation effects, error handling), usage guidelines, and output expectations. The schema handles parameter details well, but the description doesn't compensate for the missing annotations and output schema, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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%, with detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'ID of the composition', 'Text properties to modify', 'Font size in pixels'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 'Modify text formatting properties' states the action (modify) and target (text formatting properties), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what resource is being modified (text layer in a composition) or distinguish it from similar tools like 'modify_layer_properties' or 'add_text_layer_advanced' in the sibling list. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing text layer), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'modify_layer_properties' (which might handle broader layer changes) or text-specific tools in the list. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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