create_shape_with_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool creates but does not mention side effects (e.g., node creation, selection changes), error conditions, or how text overflow is handled. This lack of detail limits transparency for an agent.

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 with two sentences that front-load the main action and purpose. It is well-structured and easy to parse. However, the list of shapes could be integrated more naturally.

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 has 9 parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks details on return values, default behaviors (e.g., when text is omitted), and how the shape interacts with the canvas or parent nodes. This makes it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 already has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing the shape types, which are already in the schema. It does not clarify the fillColor format or coordinate system beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Create a FigJam shape with text inside') and specifies it's useful for flowcharts, diagrams, and process maps. It lists all supported shapes, making the purpose easy to understand. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_rectangle or create_ellipse which also create shapes but without text.

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 diagramming through the mention of flowcharts, diagrams, and process maps, which provides context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives like create_rectangle for plain shapes or set_text_content for adding text to existing shapes.

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