draw_text

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the text is 'native editable' and that coordinates are in mm and angles in degrees, but it does not explain coordinate origin, angle reference direction, what drawing_handle refers to, or any side effects of adding text.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then appends the key unit constraints. Every phrase adds information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent still lacks information about the required drawing_handle semantics, the meaning of view_number, coordinate reference, expected return value, and any failure conditions.

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 description must compensate. It adds unit semantics for positions and angle, but it does not explain drawing_handle, view_number, or how x and y align with the text anchor. The parameter meanings remain largely implicit from names and titles.

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 uses a specific verb 'Add' and a clear resource: 'native editable text to a drawing/fragment view.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like draw_line, draw_circle, and draw_linear_dimension by naming the text-specific behavior.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draw_linear_dimension or create_feature. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues for the agent to decide when this is the right drawing operation.

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