motion_set_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that only the text content changes and that font, color, and behaviors remain untouched, which is a key behavioral guarantee. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or whether the change is persistent.

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, tightly constructed sentence that delivers the essential information first and adds a clarifying clause. Every word earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

While the description explains the core operation, it omits crucial contextual details such as how to specify the target layer (path vs. scenode_id), any prerequisites beyond being a Text-factory layer, and behavior on invalid input. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but for a 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, more guidance is needed.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It only hints that new_text is the new string ('on-screen string'), while path and scenode_id are left entirely unexplained, which could confuse an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 clearly states the primary action: 'Change the on-screen string of a Text-factory layer.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes its scope by noting font, color, and behaviors are untouched. This differentiates it from sibling tools like motion_set_color.

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 implies the appropriate use case: when you need to alter only the text content of a Text-factory layer, leaving all other attributes intact. It provides clear context by listing what it does not affect, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those other attributes.

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