Create text nodes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the primary action and typical use cases, but does not mention return values, permissions, side effects, or error behavior. The 'free-floating' hint is useful but insufficient for a creation 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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The action is stated first, followed by guidance and a distinguishing alternative. No wasted words.

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 simple creation tool with a rich input schema, the description is mostly complete on purpose and usage, but it omits return value behavior and failure/side-effect details. Since no output schema is provided, the description could have explained what the API returns on success.

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?

Description has 0% parameter coverage. While the input schema contains detailed property descriptions, the tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage as required.

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 ('Add') and resource ('free-floating text') and immediately distinguishes from stickies by naming use cases (board titles, column headers, annotations). This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like create_stickies.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Good for board titles, column headers and annotations') and provides an alternative ('use stickies for content the user will rearrange'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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