add_typography

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavior for each source (e.g., Google Fonts is 'Fully automated', Adobe Fonts requires asset_url). However, it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or the outcome of adding fonts (e.g., whether it overwrites existing entries).

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 paragraph with clear enumeration of sources. It is well-structured and efficiently conveys necessary information, though it could be slightly more concise without losing value.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and usage well, but lacks information about return values or error handling. Since no output schema exists, this gap is notable. It is adequate for a tool with three required parameters but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the usage of asset_url for Custom and Adobe Fonts, and noting that weights default to [400]. This context goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Add font entries to a Typography block.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by being specific to typography blocks and enumerates four distinct font sources, providing clear differentiation.

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 provides explicit usage guidance for each source, including prerequisites (e.g., needing to use upload_file tool for Custom fonts). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternative tools, leaving some gap in decision-making.

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