sticker_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a canvas mutation but says nothing about whether the addition is undoable, what happens on an invalid key, whether coordinates are required, or what the call returns.

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 with zero padding, and the alias relationship is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits failure modes, undo behavior, and return shape. Naming it an alias of svg_add without summarizing that tool's contract leaves the agent to infer too much.

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 100%, so x, y, key, and scale are already documented in the schema, including key examples. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 sticker or badge vector element to the canvas') and discloses the alias relationship to svg_add, which is genuinely useful routing info. It stops short of differentiating itself from the other asset-insertion siblings like element_add_stock or image_add.

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 'alias for svg_add' note implies it is interchangeable with that tool, which is weak but real usage guidance. It never states when to prefer sticker_add over svg_add, or when to reach for assets_list_stickers first to discover valid keys.

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