add_formula

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: unsupported LaTeX produces an error rather than a silent partial render. It says nothing about what is created (an object with an id?), whether the action is undoable, or how it behaves when the target board is live versus a file — gaps that annotations would normally cover.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its rendering semantics front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 high schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient to call the tool correctly. The remaining gap is the return value (whether an object reference is returned for later update_object/move_objects calls) and undo semantics, which matter for a document-mutating tool with no annotations.

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 83%, so x/y/page/path/color are already well documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds only a validation note about the required 'latex' parameter (unsupported input errors out) and no format or syntax guidance beyond what the schema implies.

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 ('Adds a LaTeX formula (math mode)') and adds the rendering contract ('typeset the way TeX does'), which tells an agent exactly what artifact is produced. It does not explicitly contrast with neighboring insert tools (add_code_block, import_mermaid, add_shape), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says to pick this over add_code_block or import_mermaid, and no prerequisites (live board vs file, page targeting) are stated. The only conditional sentence is a failure condition ('Errors if the LaTeX is not supported'), which is behavioral, not routing guidance.

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