create_node_with_icon

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

The description discloses the layout (icon above text) but omits important behavioral traits like defaults (e.g., width, height, shape_type), what happens if parameters are missing, whether the shape is added to a canvas, or any potential side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but falls short.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or interaction with the canvas. More context is needed for a complex creation tool.

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?

The description adds only a hint about icon placement relative to text. For parameters like x, y, font_name, etc., the description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 62% schema coverage, the description should compensate more but does not.

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 verb 'create' and the resource 'labeled shape with an icon inside', and specifies a use case 'perfect for scientific diagram nodes'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_shape (which may not include icons) and insert_icon (which is separate).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_shape or create_shapes_batch. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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