add_text

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and 'Add ... and return its element ID' is consistent with a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation that hands back a handle. Beyond that it says nothing about undo behavior, whether the coordinate space is scene-relative, or how the element interacts with frames, so it adds only modest context over the structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, then the parameter detail. The font enumeration is slightly redundant with the schema enum and inconsistently drops the 'handwriting' value, but the numeric mapping (1-4) genuinely adds information not present elsewhere.

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?

Placeholder.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and covers only font_family. It omits all meaning for x, y, content length limits, opacity, font_size, frame_id and strokeColor, leaving the agent to infer units and coordinate systems from property names alone.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Add standalone text') plus a useful side effect ('return its element ID'). 'Standalone' implicitly separates it from container-attached or shape-creating siblings such as add_rectangle or add_frame, though no sibling is 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like update_element for changing existing text. The only implied usage cue is the word 'standalone', which the agent must interpret on its own.

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