scene_add_text_box

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

Discloses a significant non-obvious behavioral trait: text only renders on accounts with 奇匠 level 2+, and level-1 accounts show an empty box. Annotations already flag readOnly=false/destructive=true, and 'in a copy of a save' hints at the save-copy scope, though it doesn't spell out what the destruction entails.

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 variable-format and level-gating details are valuable, but the prose is rambling with run-on sentences, embedded Chinese, and parentheticals (e.g. the 2026-10-13 measurement note) that dilute the front-loaded core instruction.

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 7-param mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the critical rendering and coordinate semantics well, but omits what name/mapPath/outputName do and what 'a copy of a save' implies for side effects, leaving gaps an agent would need filled on first invocation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden and delivers on the hardest params: variable syntax for text, position as [x,y] from screen centre on a 1600x900 y-up canvas, size as [width,height], and fontSize. It leaves name, mapPath, and outputName undocumented, so it doesn't fully compensate.

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+resource ('Put a text box on the screen') and explains the content it can carry (words, numbers following custom variables). It's clear what it does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling scene_add_progress_bar except as a fallback when text fails to render.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: test one box before relying on text, and if nothing shows, use scene_add_progress_bar, markers, or effects instead. No explicit 'when not to use' beyond the level-2 caveat, but the conditional guidance is actionable.

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