add_mtext

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutating nature is covered. The description adds useful format behavior (\P as the newline escape, width must be > 0) but says nothing about needing an active document, units, or how the insertion point relates to the box alignment.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then an explicit QUANDO USAR marker, a compact parameter list, and a concrete example. Each element earns its place, though the parameter line is a terse enumeration rather than prose.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers all five parameters plus the multiline use case. It omits document-state prerequisites and unit conventions, which is a minor remaining gap for a 5-param mutation tool.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: point is described as the insertion corner, width as a box width constrained to > 0, height as optional text height, and layer is named. It does not clarify the coordinate format or units for point/width, leaving a small gap.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource in "Adiciona texto de várias linhas (MText)", and the qualifier "de várias linhas" implicitly separates it from the single-line sibling add_text. An agent can tell what entity is created without opening the schema.

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?

"QUANDO USAR: notas e legendas" states a clear use context for this tool. It stops short of naming add_text as the alternative for single-line text or stating when not to use MText, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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