draw_text

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. "Create" correctly signals a mutating operation and the multiline flag explains the entity type produced, but nothing is said about whether the target layer must pre-exist, what happens on a locked/frozen layer, whether the insertion is undoable, or whether an active document is required.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Args list; there is no filler. Slight expansion of a couple of args (units for height/position) would have cost nothing and improved it.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers parameter semantics adequately and need not explain return values. What is missing is the mutation context an agent needs before calling a write tool: required application state, layer-existence behavior, and failure modes.

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 Args block does necessary work: it gives the position format ([x, y] or [x, y, z]), states rotation is in degrees, explains that multiline switches the entity type, and constrains color to ACI 1-255. It leaves the height default (2.5) to the schema and adds no unit information, which is a minor residual gap.

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 single-line TEXT or multiline MTEXT") plus the target application, and the TEXT/MTEXT distinction immediately separates it from sibling drawing tools like draw_line or draw_hatch. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by "Create ... in AutoCAD" and the multiline flag hints at the TEXT-vs-MTEXT choice, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (must a drawing be open? must the layer already exist?), and no comparison to alternatives such as send_command or eval_autolisp.

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