Add Text

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

The description usefully discloses that the tool mutates and persists the file ('save it in place'), which adds behavioral context beyond the generic false hints in annotations. However, it leaves other behavioral traits such as repeated-call effects or failure behavior to the agent to infer.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every phrase earns its place by adding either the resource type or the persistence behavior.

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 core purpose and the in-place save side effect, and the schema plus output schema handle parameter and return details. However, it omits the prerequisite workflow of creating or obtaining the editable copy and does not explicitly position the tool among cad_add_* siblings, leaving some contextual gaps for a mutating 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?

The tool description itself provides almost no parameter-level meaning; 'TEXT entity' and 'editable copy' only weakly map to the text and file_path parameters. With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description does not compensate for the required position and text parameters, even though the nested schema does contain some property 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 a specific action ('Add') on a specific resource ('TEXT entity on the editable copy') and distinguishes this from sibling add_* tools by entity type. It is more informative than the title and conveys the in-place save scope.

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 phrase 'on the editable copy' implies when this tool is appropriate and hints at a prerequisite, but it does not explicitly mention the need to create the copy first via cad_create_editable_copy. It also does not explicitly contrast this tool with the other cad_add_* alternatives, so usage guidance is mostly inferred.

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