Load Font

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint, readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, which disclose key behavior. The description adds that the font becomes available for specific sibling tools and that list_fonts can be used afterward, which is useful context beyond the structured annotations.

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, each serving a clear purpose: first sentence defines the action and scope, second sentence provides after-use guidance. No redundant words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 has a single parameter fully described in the schema, no output schema required, and the description covers the behavioral flow (load, then use in text tools, then find name via list_fonts). This is complete for a simple font-loading operation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already specifies the file extensions. The tool description reiterates the supported formats but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Load), the resource (custom font), the source (URL), and supported file types (TTF, OTF, WOFF2). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the font's availability for add_text and edit_text, and mentions list_fonts as a follow-up step, differentiating it from other font-related tools.

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 explicitly links to two use cases (add_text, edit_text) and directs users to list_fonts for retrieving the PostScript name. It implies when to use the tool (before text operations), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives beyond list_fonts.

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