add_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no mention of undo impact, layer-creation side effects, or overwrite behavior — but it is consistent with the annotations, so the lower bar applies.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then when-to-use, then parameters, then example. Dense but each element earns its place; the parameter list is slightly terse but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a mutating text-creation tool the description covers purpose, usage condition, all five parameters, and an example, leaving only minor gaps around coordinate conventions and layer auto-creation.

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 must carry the burden, and it does: it labels point as insertion, height as >0 in drawing units, rotation in DEGREES, and layer, plus a concrete call example. It does not clarify the point's coordinate dimensionality/order beyond the example.

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: 'Adiciona texto de linha única' (adds single-line text). The 'linha única' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the multiline sibling add_mtext, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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: rótulos curtos (TAG, cota, nota)' gives an explicit when-to-use condition with concrete examples. It lacks a when-not clause or a named alternative (e.g., use add_mtext for multiline), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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