create_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it explains that text is real vector geometry, prints in PDF, anchors position on the baseline, defines align/angle semantics, specifies height as capital height in mm with a concrete default conversion, and states the default layer. It does not cover every edge behavior, but it is unusually informative for an unannotated tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important fact (single-line vector text that prints), then efficiently maps each key parameter to its semantics. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 7-parameter schema with only 2 required parameters, the description covers most invocation-critical details: defaults, anchoring, units, and layer behavior. An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described. The main gaps are explicit scale semantics and coordinate-system units, but these are minor for a tool with this much inline guidance.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains position, align, angle, height, and layer defaults directly, and the '1:50' reference connects to scale. Only the scale parameter itself is left somewhat implicit, but most parameters receive meaningful clarification beyond the raw schema.

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 tool creates a single-line text object with real vector geometry that prints in PDF. It gives the resource and key behavioral characteristics, and the 'single-line' qualifier helps separate it from richer text/note tools, though it does not name an alternative sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use create_text versus alternatives like create_note or update_text. The description implies text creation but does not state conditions, exclusions, or which sibling tool to prefer for other text needs.

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