ai_add_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only reveals that text will be added; it does not mention prerequisites like requiring an open document, mutation side effects, response behavior, or what happens if no document is active. This falls short of the behavioral burden.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the operation and then compactly maps parameters to concepts. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 simple tool and complete schema, the description covers the essential operation. However, it omits the prerequisite of an active Illustrator document and does not explain default color behavior when optional fr/fg/fb are absent. These are minor but relevant gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including defaults and optionality. The description simply restates the parameter-to-meaning mapping without adding new semantic nuance, earning the baseline 3.

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 states a specific action ('添加文字') on a specific resource ('当前 Illustrator 文档'), which clearly distinguishes it from the Photoshop text tool sibling and from shape-adding Illustrator tools. It also names the focus in the first sentence.

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 phrase '当前 Illustrator 文档' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when text must be added to an active Illustrator document. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, such as 'use ps_add_text_layer for Photoshop', but the context is clear enough for routine selection.

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