create_titles

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals important traits: a limit of 1000 widgets, auto-growing width to fit text, support for specific HTML tags, and default values for position and size. This goes well beyond the minimal 'creates widgets' expectation, though it stops short of discussing permissions or error 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?

The description is efficiently structured: a brief overview sentence, a bulleted list of widget properties, and a compact args section. Each bullet adds necessary detail, though the Args section partially repeats schema information. Overall, it's dense but not bloated.

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 that the tool has an output schema, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the maze of nested widget parameters thoroughly. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether 'text' is required within each widget object and doesn't clarify prerequisites like the mural existing. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema is minimal (mural_id and widgets array with additionalProperties:true), providing zero semantic coverage. The description fully compensates by detailing every supported field of a widget object, including text formatting, positional defaults, style properties, and parentId. This is essential for the agent to construct valid inputs.

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 title widgets on a mural (limit 1000).' This uses a specific verb and resource ('title widgets'), and the mention of the 1000 limit and auto-growing width distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_textboxes or create_sticky_notes.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_textboxes or create_shapes. The intended usage is implied by the name and widget type, but the description does not explain the difference between a 'title' and a 'textbox', leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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