adobe_add_text

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds that the resulting text is editable and native (non-rasterized), but says nothing about what the destructive flag means here — whether it overwrites an existing layer, whether the action is undoable, or what the returned value represents despite an output schema existing.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence with the key qualifier front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity tips into under-specification rather than elegant economy.

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 an 8-required-parameter, zero-coverage destructive creation tool, the description is far too thin — it documents only two of the parameters and omits coordinate system, color range, and any preconditions. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the invocation-critical gaps remain substantial.

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 0% across 8 required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it: it clarifies that 'font' must be an exact discovered PostScript name and that 'size' is a point size. It says nothing about the 'position' array format/units, 'rgb' value range, 'name' semantics, or 'session_id'/'application' requirements.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create editable native text', and adds two defining constraints (exact discovered PostScript font, point size). This is clearly distinct from siblings like adobe_add_rectangle or adobe_place_image, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites or ordering, and no mention of which application (photoshop vs illustrator) scenarios it applies to. The word 'discovered' only weakly hints that a font must first be looked up via adobe_fonts; the agent must infer this.

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