edit_text_frame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the edit is additive or replacement, what happens if frameIndex is invalid, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks useful structure. It could benefit from a brief list of common usage patterns or notes on default behaviors.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the effect of partial parameter sets, leaving important gaps.

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 has 83% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format of textColor or alignment values), so the score remains 3.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Edit' and the resource 'existing text frame', making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_page_item_properties' or 'create_text_frame'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'set_page_item_properties' or 'apply_character_style'. The description provides no context about prerequisites, conflicts, or best use cases.

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