text-create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates a Text data-block, but it does not mention side effects, return values, error cases, or any implications of the operation. This is minimal transparency for a creation tool.

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 sentence, making it extremely concise and front-loaded. It is easy to read and parse, but its brevity comes at the cost of missing important details, which is a trade-off. For a simple tool, this is appropriately sized, though not overly rich.

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 only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what a 'Text data-block' is, how the 'body' parameter is used, and what the result of creation looks like. The current description is too incomplete to fully guide an agent, especially with sibling tools like text-open and text-save nearby.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the description must compensate for parameter semantics, but it does not. The schema lists 'name' and 'body' with titles, but the description gives no additional meaning, such as how the parameters relate to the data-block or any constraints or formatting.

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 'Create a Text data-block' clearly states the verb (create) and the resource (Text data-block), which is specific enough to convey the tool's primary function. It is distinct from sibling tools like text-open, text-read, and text-write, but it does not explicitly call out those distinctions, so it doesn't reach 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The sibling list is extensive, but the description doesn't help the agent decide between text-create and text-write or geometry-create_text.

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