gimp_add_text

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-openWorld operation. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: (x,y) is the TOP-LEFT corner not the center, and the text is clipped if x+width/y+height exceed the image, plus a directive to verify this in the response.

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-loads the purpose, then layers parameter and workflow detail in a tight run of sentences with no filler. Dense but each clause carries usable information.

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?

For a 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the two highest-risk pitfalls (coordinate semantics and clipping) and points to a resource-listing helper. It still leaves nearly half the parameters (spacing, color, justify, image_id) with no explanation, so it is only partially complete.

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 12 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the tricky ones (x/y coordinate convention, size in px, box_width for line wrapping, align values), but font, color, justify, line_spacing, letter_spacing, and image_id remain undocumented in both places.

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+resource: 'Añade una capa de texto editable' (adds an editable text layer). Clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling gimp_edit_text, which operates on text too, so the agent must infer which tool applies to new vs. 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?

Offers practical guidance on how to reach goals (use align='center'/'center_x' to center, box_width to wrap) and points to gimp_list_resources('fonts') for font names. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing vs. gimp_edit_text, so usage is only implied.

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