drop_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool creates a borderless/fill-less label, that (x, y) is the center in inches, that size is estimated when omitted, and that unconnected text is ignored by auto-layout. These are meaningful behaviors beyond the tool name.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds positioning, sizing, and auto-layout behavior without any redundancy. Every clause contributes useful information.

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?

For a simple creation tool, the description covers the essential behavior: what is created, where it is placed, how sizing works, and how it interacts with auto-layout. It does not describe return values or all styling defaults, but the schema and obvious parameter names reduce the risk of incorrect invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that (x, y) is the center in inches and that size is estimated from text when not supplied. However, most optional parameters such as text_color, font_size_pt, align, bold, and page are left to their schema titles and defaults, so the burden is only partially met.

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 names a specific primitive ('text-only label') and clearly separates it from general shape tools by stating 'no border, no fill' and listing concrete use cases: diagram titles, legends, and callouts. This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like drop_shape and drop_shapes.

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 gives clear usage context with explicit use cases and notes that auto-layout ignores unconnected text shapes, which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state a 'use drop_shape instead' condition, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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