add_textbox

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a formatted text box' without explaining side effects, prerequisites (e.g., reportSessionId), or interactions with existing content. This is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and use cases. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is optimally concise while still conveying the essential purpose.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-line description is insufficient for full understanding. It gives use cases but lacks details on parameter relationships, return values, or behavioral constraints. The tool is more complex than the description suggests, leaving significant gaps.

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?

The input schema has 11 parameters with only 27% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It hints at 'formatted' but does not explain x, y, width, height, text, bold, or pageName. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 creates a formatted text box and specifies concrete use cases (page headers, section titles, captions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_shape or add_image, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool ('use for page headers, section titles and captions'), giving the agent actionable guidance. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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