draw_mtext

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses two key behavioral traits: the (x,y) anchor is the top-left corner, and width controls the wrap width. This is valuable context beyond what the schema provides. However, it does not mention that the tool creates a new entity, how height affects rendering, or whether it operates on the current layer, leaving several behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence (fragment) with no wasted words. Each clause provides meaningful information: the entity type, anchor semantics, and wrap width. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While it may be under-specified for completeness, it remains appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and only a minimal description, the description is not complete enough. It covers only a few parameter semantics and lacks broader context such as how the text is placed, what height means, or the expected return/effects. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but the description still fails to fully explain the tool's behavior and parameters.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to x and y (top-left corner) and width (wrap width), covering three of six parameters. The required 'text' parameter is obvious from the context, but 'layer' and 'height' are not explained. This partial compensation makes it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 identifies the resource as multiline text and specifies the coordinate semantics (top-left corner) and wrap width. The verb 'draw' is implicit from the tool name 'draw_mtext', and the distinction from the sibling 'draw_text' (single-line text) is clear. However, the description is a fragment rather than a full statement like 'Draws a multiline text entity'.

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 phrase 'Multiline text' implies this tool is for multiline text, as opposed to the sibling 'draw_text' which is presumably for single-line text. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations. The usage context is implied but not spelled out.

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