add_label

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only describes the label's visual attributes, not side effects, return values, or integration with the document state (e.g., whether it modifies the current page, whether it is reversible).

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 concise sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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 the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and a sparse description, it is not contextually complete. It does not explain what happens after adding a label, how x/y units are defined, or how this fits into the broader document workflow. The output schema exists but does not relieve the need for behavioral and parameter context.

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%, and the description only clarifies the meaning of text, x, and y (centered placement). It does not explain h, w, bold, font, or size, leaving the majority of the 8 parameters undefined. The description adds some value for coordinates but fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 the action ('Add'), the resource ('centered text label'), and key visual traits ('borderless, transparent') plus placement ('at (x, y)'). This uniquely identifies the tool among siblings like draw_wire and add_junction, which serve different purposes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., an open document, a selected page) or exclusions. The description simply states the action without contextual usage advice.

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