add_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Add' implies a mutation, and 'single-line' hints at the content constraint, but nothing is said about coordinate space, what layer the annotation lands on, undo/transaction behavior, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. But the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economical precision, so it does not earn more than a middling score.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description omits nearly everything an agent needs: units, coordinate frame, style format, and return information. It is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 0% across five parameters (content, position, height, style, rotation), including a nested position object. The description adds only a weak constraint that content must be single-line; it does not explain units for height, the reference point for position, or what style expects.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add ... text annotation'), and the qualifier 'single-line' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling add_mtext. However, it never names or contrasts with that sibling, so differentiation still requires the agent to infer it from the description text alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus add_mtext or add_leader, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as an active document or layer. The agent is left to guess the selection criteria from the name alone.

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