create_text_frame

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (creating a new text frame) and implies it adds a frame rather than modifying existing ones. However, it omits details such as whether the frame is placed on a specific page, error conditions (e.g., invalid page number), or any side effects. The essential behavior is clear but not rich.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It states the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain when this tool should be used relative to siblings like set_frame_text or insert_text, what happens if the page doesn't exist, or what the return value is. An agent would need additional context to call it correctly in a broader task.

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 provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'specified dimensions' which maps to geometricBounds, but it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the 'page' or 'text' parameters, but the schema already covers them. Overall, minimal added value.

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 states the action: 'Creates a new text frame on a page with the specified dimensions.' It identifies the verb (creates), the resource (text frame), and a key attribute (dimensions). However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like set_frame_text or insert_text, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions (e.g., 'use this when you need a new empty frame, not for editing existing text'). The agent must infer usage from the action alone, which is insufficient for routing across many similar siblings.

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