ai_addText

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

Annotations already declare it is mutating, not destructive, and not open-world. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: point vs area text, position semantics, and outline:true converting text to outlines. It still omits defaults, font fallback, and return behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence that is dense but has no filler. Each clause describes a parameter or a behavioral trait of the created text.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with minimal schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers core creation behavior. It still omits coordinate units, color format, defaults, and return/side-effect details that would help an agent invoke it confidently.

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 only 8%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for font as PostScript name, box as [w,h] area text, position as [x,y], and outline conversion, and lists most optional fields; however color format, size/tracking/leading units, and name/layer semantics remain unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: add text in Illustrator. It distinguishes point text from area text via the box parameter and mentions outline conversion, so the agent can identify the operation clearly.

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?

Implies use for creating text in Illustrator and explains that supplying box switches to area text. It does not explicitly name when to use this versus sibling tools or state prerequisites/exclusions.

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