figcraft_fix_overflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool scans the entire canvas and mutates text properties by setting textAutoResize to 'height', but it does not state whether changes are reversible, whether permissions are required, or what the tool returns.

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 identifies the canvas-wide scan and the two fixes. It is dense but efficient; no sentence is wasted, though the phrasing is slightly long for the amount of guidance provided.

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 no-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the scope and the specific changes made. However, it omits safety context such as reversibility, report of changes, and any error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking a canvas-wide mutation.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is full. The description adds relevant detail about the automatic behavior and the textAutoResize setting, though parameter semantics are not applicable for a no-argument tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it scans the entire canvas and automatically fixes text overflow and escaped newline characters. It clearly states the tool's main outcome, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling fix_overflow tool, which may have overlapping purpose.

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?

It implies usage in the context of text overflow and raw escaped newlines, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The sibling fix_overflow is not mentioned or differentiated.

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