create_textboxes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: a limit of 1000 widgets, fixed-width wrapping, HTML support in text, default values for position and size, and the ability to specify a parent area. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a create operation, the mutation is obvious. The description adds value beyond simple 'create' semantics.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the main purpose. The bullet list for widget properties is clear and concise, and the 'Args' section reinforces the top-level parameters. Every sentence provides useful information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool is well-documented for its complexity. The description covers limits, defaults, HTML support, and parent-child relationships. An output schema exists, so the lack of a return-value explanation is acceptable. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly, including important constraints like the limit and coordinate units.

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 compensates fully. It explains the top-level params 'mural_id' and 'widgets' and details each supported field inside widget objects, including types, defaults, and supported HTML styling. This goes far beyond the sparse schema and gives the agent essential information for constructing a valid request.

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's function: 'Create one or more textbox widgets on a mural (limit 1000).' It specifies the verb, resource, and a distinguishing behavior ('Textboxes wrap text to fixed width'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_sticky_notes or create_shapes.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when creating textbox widgets on a mural. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on textboxes and the fixed-width wrapping behavior implicitly set it apart from other widget-creation tools. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is given, but the context is unambiguous.

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