create_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add one concrete behavior: font-weight auto-resolution with examples. However, it leaves 'design-intelligent typography' vague and does not disclose where the node is placed, what the tool returns, or any side effects beyond the obvious creation.

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 short sentences with no filler. The operation is front-loaded, and the second sentence supplies the most non-obvious detail an agent needs.

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?

Despite complete schema coverage, there is no annotations and no output schema. The description does not explain where the text node is created (current selection vs parentId), what it returns, or how omitted typography parameters behave beyond fontWeight.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value for fontWeight by clarifying normalization ('bold' → 'Bold', '600' → 'Semi Bold'), going beyond the schema's list of accepted values.

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 ('Create text') and adds a differentiating behavioral claim ('design-intelligent typography'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like set_text_content or style_text_range, but 'create' clearly signals a new node rather than modifying existing text.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool instead of set_text_content, style_text_range, or type_set_hierarchy. The only usage signal is the verb 'Create', with no prerequisites, placement context, or exclusion conditions.

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