create_text

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: the default font is loaded automatically, the node is appended to a parent (defaulting to current page), and the return value includes { ok, nodeId, name, type }. This exceeds the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core action and key options, the second gives targeted alternatives and return value. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential aspects: creation, optional placement, parent default, and return metadata. Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of the return value is especially useful. It does not cover error conditions or permissions, but for a create operation with good annotations and schema, this is sufficient.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that parentId is optional and defaults to the current page, and that characters are required, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides for x, y, fontSize, or characters. It does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 states a specific action ('Create a new TEXT node') with a clear resource and details about optional sizing, positioning, and parent assignment. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_text and set_text_properties, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides when-to-use guidance by naming alternatives: 'To change the text of an existing node use set_text; for font, size, or color use set_text_properties.' It also clarifies the default parent behavior, giving clear context for tool selection.

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