create_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the action ('create') and omits any details about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or return behavior. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant ambiguity about what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by compact typography tips. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting makes the key parameter guidance easily scannable.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It covers only three parameters' semantics and provides no information about return values, error scenarios, or what an agent should expect after execution. The tool is more complex than the description supports.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It adds meaningful guidance for three parameters (fontStyle allowed values, fontSize contextual ranges, letterSpacing use case) but leaves nine other parameters unaddressed. The provided hints are valuable for the core typography controls, making this a partial compensation.

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 'Create a text node with full typography control,' using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_line or create_frame. It unambiguously communicates the tool's function.

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 implies usage for creating text but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state exclusions. It does provide useful typography guidelines (fontSize ranges, letterSpacing usage) that help agents choose appropriate parameter values, but lacks explicit 'use this when' or 'not for' guidance.

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