create_text_boxes

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'Returns IDs' and the batch size limit of 1000, which goes beyond the basic create intent. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose potential failure modes, permission requirements, or the effect of partial batch failures. It gives only minimal behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key information: what, where, batch size, and return value. Every word adds value, with 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?

The tool has a relatively simple parameter structure (two top-level params, one array of objects), and the schema provides detailed descriptions for the core properties. The description mentions return IDs and batch limit, but does not explain behavior on errors, partial success, or output format. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand invocation consequences.

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 only 50%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters (e.g., style, width, height). The description merely says 'text boxes' without elaborating on their structure or required fields. It adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides for x, y, and text, and fails to clarify the nested properties.

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 tool's function: 'Create text boxes on a mural (batch, up to 1000)'. It specifies the resource (text boxes on a mural), the action (create), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_sticky_notes or create_shapes by naming the specific object type. The batch limit adds scope.

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 batch limit 'up to 1000' implies use for bulk creation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like create_sticky_notes or update_text_box. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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