Create Text Layer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds context about full typographic control in a single call. It does not describe side effects like layer ordering or selection changes, but the safety profile is adequately covered by 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?

The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the purpose and capabilities, and the second sentence providing a clear usage hint. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 complexity of 13 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key parameter guidance. It does not mention return values, but for a creation tool, the return is often implicit (e.g., layer ID), so it is nearly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing typographic controls and explaining 'type' usage, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 it creates a text layer with full typographic control, listing specific properties like font, size, color, alignment, tracking, leading, and warp. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like ps_update_text or ps_typography.

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 provides explicit guidance on using 'point' vs 'area' types, which is a key usage distinction. However, it does not discuss when to use this tool over alternatives like ps_update_text for modifications, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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