add_show_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and reveals the important automatic splitting of long text into multiple boxes and the code structure handling, which is useful context. It lacks return/error behavior, but covers the key mutation aspects.

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, two sentences, and front-loads the primary purpose while packing essential technical behavior without fluff.

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?

For a specialized command adder, the description covers the main behavior and usage, including line breaks and automatic splitting, but does not mention return values or error handling, leaving minor gaps.

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 only 40% with text and position described. The tool description adds meaningful detail about text (using \n for line breaks, 4 lines per box) but does not clarify mapId, eventId, or pageIndex, though those are fairly self-explanatory by name.

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 'Add a Show Text message to an event page' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from generic siblings like add_event_command by focusing on Show Text and its XP 101/401 structure.

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?

It implies it is the appropriate tool for adding Show Text messages, and explains the automatic handling of 101/401 codes and line break syntax, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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