generate_lettering

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

Discloses batch semantics (each line becomes separate design), scale_percent clamping, default formats, output directory behavior, and trim/color_sort/text_align options. With no annotations, this fully informs the agent of side effects.

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?

Dense paragraph front-loads purpose then systematically lists parameter details using colons. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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?

Given 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers constraints, defaults, and side effects thoroughly. The only minor gap is undefined numeric parameters, but overall it's remarkably 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?

Explains font, formats, scale_percent clamping, trim/color_sort/text_align enums, output_dir default, and batch behavior of text. However, numeric parameters like line_height, word_spacing, letter_spacing are only named with defaults, lacking units or interpretation.

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?

Clearly states the tool creates machine-embroidered text using digitized fonts. The verb 'Create' and resource 'machine-embroidered text' are precise. Distinguishes from siblings like import_embroidery and export_embroidery.

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?

Provides clear context: font must come from list_fonts, newline-separated lines become separate designs. Does not explicitly exclude other uses or compare to siblings, but the specific nature of lettering implies when to use.

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