Mesa de trabajo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the create action. It does not state whether a document must be open/active, what happens to existing artboards, whether the operation is reversible, or what is returned.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the core action front-loaded and the workflow hint second. No filler, though it is terse enough to leave gaps elsewhere.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and workflow but does not close the parameter-coverage or behavioral gaps. Adequate but not complete.

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 (29% – only doc and background documented), so the description should compensate. It names the concept of each field (name, position, size, background) but adds no syntax such as x/y coordinate origin, units, or the doc default, leaving half the parameters underspecified.

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 mesa de trabajo (artboard)') plus the key configurable attributes (name, position, size, optional background). Clear what it does, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like ps_new_document.

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?

Provides concrete usage context ('varias piezas en un mismo documento') and points to the downstream alternative workflow via ps_export mode:"artboards". Lacks explicit when-not guidance, but the intended scenario is clear.

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