text_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the tool 'adds' a layer, implying mutation, but does not disclose whether the new layer is selectable, how it stacks relative to existing layers, whether it can be undone via history_undo, or what happens when x/y are omitted beyond the schema's 'center by default' note.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first. The parenthetical font enumeration is somewhat expendable since the schema already documents fontFamily, but it does not bloat the definition badly.

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?

With 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin for a creation tool. It omits behavior on success/failure, interaction with the active canvas/page, and how the created layer relates to layer_align, layer_reorder, or history_undo.

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 82%, above the threshold where the schema already documents parameters well. The description only echoes font family examples that fontFamily already lists, adding a marginally wider set of font names but no new semantic detail.

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 typography text layer to the canvas.' This clearly separates it from siblings like text_update_style (modify existing) and shape_add (different element type), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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. An agent must infer that this creates a new layer versus text_update_style, which restyles an existing one, and there is no mention of prerequisites such as needing an active canvas or page.

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