add_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the newline support feature, which adds context, but it doesn't explicitly state that the operation modifies the canvas or any side effects. The verb 'add' implicitly signals mutation, but error conditions or interaction with existing content are not addressed.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes a key feature (newline support). There is no redundant or filler content, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a simple add-text tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks coordinate system details (e.g., pixel units, origin), potential interactions with existing canvas elements, and any return value or error information. Given the sibling drawing tools, some shared context might be assumed but is not explicitly stated.

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 only 33%, with only 'text' having a description. The description confirms x and y as coordinates but adds no detail on units, origin, or valid ranges. It does explain the newline escape in text, which is helpful. Overall, the description partially compensates for the missing x/y schema descriptions but leaves gaps.

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's action: adding text at specified coordinates, with newline support. It effectively distinguishes from sibling drawing tools (draw_line, draw_box, etc.) by focusing on text placement rather than shape drawing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the canvas context, which is implied by the sibling names.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it does, not the context in which it should be selected or any exclusions. There is no mention of when drawing tools would be preferable or any prerequisites for using this tool.

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