gimp_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains key behaviors: creation vs editing, size units, font resolution, justify values, spacing, and optional fixed box. However, it does not describe side effects, conflicts if both image_id and layer_id are supplied, or whether editing replaces or modifies existing text content.

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?

A single dense sentence delivers create/edit modes, parameter units, font guidance, enum values, and box behavior with zero fluff. Everything included earns its place and the most important operational distinction is front-loaded.

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 14 optional parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description gives a solid core but leaves gaps such as x/y positioning, layer name semantics, and behavior when parameters conflict. The presence of an output schema helps with return shape, but the description alone is not fully complete for all valid calls.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for many parameters: image_id/text create mode, layer_id edit mode, size in px, font via gimp_list_fonts, color, justify enum values, spacing, and fixed box dimensions. It still leaves x, y, and name partially unexplained, but the description is far more informative than the bare parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a text layer... or edit one', and clearly separates the two modes by image_id vs layer_id. This distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like gimp_layer and makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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 gives clear usage context: use image_id + text to create, layer_id to edit, and points to gimp_list_fonts for font names. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like gimp_layer, which keeps it from a 5.

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