draw_text

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only clarifies rotation units but does not mention that the tool creates a new text entity, how it interacts with the current layer, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the operation's impact.

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 with no filler, efficiently conveying the core operation and the rotation unit. However, it is so sparse that it omits valuable context, but for conciseness it is appropriately compact.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks sufficient context for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool. It does not explain parameters like height and layer, nor does it provide usage guidance relative to draw_mtext, making it incomplete for reliable use.

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%, yet the description only clarifies x,y and rotation units. It does not explain the meaning of 'text', 'layer', or 'height' parameters, leaving the agent to infer their semantics. This partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but leaves significant gaps.

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 tool as creating single-line text at a specific (x,y) coordinate, and specifies that rotation is in degrees. The term 'single-line' distinguishes it from draw_mtext among sibling tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draw_mtext for multi-line text. The description provides only the basic definition without any contextual usage advice or exclusions.

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