Create text overlay

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it creates a Text TOP with specific attributes, optionally composites over a source TOP via a Composite TOP, and outputs a Null. It confirms the text is static and discloses the process without contradicting the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false).

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 concise—3 well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the core action, the second lists use cases, and the third draws clear distinctions from siblings. No redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 simple parameters, no output schema, supportive annotations), the description is complete. It explains what is created, how it works, when to use it, and how it differs from alternatives. The mention of output as a Null is a helpful detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by naturally framing key parameters (font size, color, alignment) as the core attributes of the text, and mentions optional source compositing, providing workflow context that the schema alone does not.

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 explicitly states it composites static text over a visual or on a transparent background. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools such as create_kinetic_text (for moving text) and create_text_crawl (for scrolling tickers), and also separates itself from bind_vault_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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for lyrics, titles, song names, credits) and when not to use it (for moving text use create_kinetic_text, for scrolling tickers use create_text_crawl). It also contrasts with bind_vault_text.

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