draw_text

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions position and height. It does not state that this creates a text entity, how it interacts with layers, whether it requires an open drawing, or what the return value is. The behavioral profile is largely opaque.

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, terse phrase with no redundant or irrelevant information. It front-loads the core placement concept, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 purpose (drawing text in a CAD-like environment), the description is too sparse. It lacks context about coordinate system, layer behavior, units, error conditions, or the effect of the operation. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing operational context.

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%, so the description partially compensates by explaining x, y, and height. However, it does not explicitly clarify the 'text' parameter (though implied) and completely omits 'layer'. Units and coordinate system are unaddressed, leaving gaps for parameters beyond the basic ones.

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 'Texto en (x, y) con la altura dada' clearly indicates placement of text at coordinates with a specified height, distinguishing it from other drawing tools like draw_line or draw_circle. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'draws' or 'creates', making it slightly less direct.

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 like draw_line or draw_rectangle. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., active drawing) or typical use cases, leaving the agent without 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.