Agregar texto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this creates a new layer and that layer effects can be attached in the same call ('Admite efectos en la misma llamada'), which is useful. However it says nothing about permissions, side effects on existing layers, or failure/reversibility behavior expected of a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers in usage modes, positioning, and effects in four tight clauses with no filler. Dense but each clause carries signal; slightly compressed wording is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 complex tool with 25 parameters, nested objects, and only 48% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the main mechanics but leaves a large surface of parameters and layer-placement options undocumented. Adequate for the core call, incomplete for the full parameter set.

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 coverage is low (48%) across 25 parameters, so the description should compensate more than it does. It does clarify the highest-value semantics ('style' vs 'runs', x,y+anchor positioning, box for paragraph text), but the many remaining parameters (opacity, blend, label, parent, doc, language) rely on the schema alone.

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 ('Crea una capa de texto') and immediately scopes it with 'control tipográfico completo'. The verb 'crea' cleanly distinguishes this from the sibling editing/inspection tools (ps_edit_text, ps_text_info) without needing to name them.

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?

Gives clear operational context on the two modes ('style' for a single style vs 'runs' for multiple spans, plus box={width,height} for paragraph text), which tells the agent when each shape of call is appropriate. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives against siblings, keeping it short of a 5.

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