Set Text Background

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint: false, so the description adds valuable behavioral context: it reveals that the operation creates a masking background (non-destructive) and warns about the silent success on TEXT entities (no effect despite reporting success). This is important hidden behavior not inferable from the schema or annotations alone.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second delivers a critical caveat/limitation. Excellent front-loading and appropriate length.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, the MTEXT-only constraint, and the visual effect. With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the absence of return-value details is acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline applies; the description does not explain parameters in detail, but it does provide useful context (e.g., 'mask what is behind') that complements the schema's parameter descriptions. It adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, but neither is needed since the schema is self-sufficient.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Mask') and a specific resource ('MTEXT'), clearly stating the visual purpose: to keep text readable over hatch or geometry. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly limiting to MTEXT and noting that TEXT entities lack the background-fill attribute, so this tool would silently no-op on them.

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 context for when to use the tool (when an MTEXT needs a background to stay readable) and an explicit exclusion ('MTEXT only... TEXT has no background-fill attribute'). It does not name alternative tools for similar formatting tasks, but the guidance is sufficient to avoid misuse.

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