create_shape_with_text

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds key behavioral info: 'parentId' is required server-side despite not being in required array, and lists supported shapes. However, it omits details on mutation behavior, undo, or authentication needs.

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 concise sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with verb and purpose, followed by essential list of supported shapes. Every sentence 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?

Despite 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It fails to explain coordinate system, default dimensions, text rendering behavior, or error cases. ParentId requirement is mentioned but could be clearer. More context needed for a complex 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists shape enum values and mentions text inside, adding marginal value over schema. No additional parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides.

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 creates a FigJam shape with text inside, using specific verb 'Create' and resource 'shape with text'. It distinguishes from sibling shape tools (e.g., create_rectangle, create_ellipse) by emphasizing text inclusion and listing supported 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 notes usefulness 'for flowcharts, diagrams, and process maps', providing clear usage context. It implies when to choose this tool over shape-only siblings, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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