formatTextLayer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It indicates a mutation ('modify') but does not disclose whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, how omitted parameters behave, or what happens when the target layer is missing.

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 that begins with the core action and then lists supported attributes. It is dense but avoids filler; the list is long yet every item corresponds to an actual capability.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the parameter surface broadly but omits usage context, side effects, prerequisites, and return behavior that an agent would need to invoke it safely and 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 17 parameters in detail. The description lists many of the modifiable fields but adds no syntax, format, or behavioral meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Format an existing text layer,' and then enumerates the exact text attributes that can be modified. The word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from createTextLayer, and the text-specific scope separates it from broader layer-property tools.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as createTextLayer, aiModifySelectedLayer, or setLayerProperties. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing instructions.

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