obj_get_font_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool may create a font-table entry, which is an important side effect. However, it does not state idempotency, persistence, document-state requirements, or whether creation 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured into Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant filler.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, all parameters, return shape, and a key downstream usage. The output schema exists, so return values need not be exhaustively explained. It still lacks guidance on prerequisites or sibling selection.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It documents all seven parameters with meaning: size in points, font family default, bold/italic/underline/strikeout flags, and rotation in degrees with listed values (0, 90, 180, 270).

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 states a specific verb and resource: get or create a font ID for given font properties. It explains that this looks up or creates an entry in the Altium font table. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling obj_get_font_spec, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description gives a clear usage context: use the returned font_id to set an object's FontId via obj_modify. This tells the agent when the tool is needed in a workflow. It does not name exclusions or compare against alternatives such as obj_get_font_spec.

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