add_text

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description needn't restate safety. It adds real value with 'left baseline' insertion semantics, but says nothing about whether a drawing must be open, what happens on a non-existent layer beyond the schema, or undo behavior.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though at the cost of omitting guidance that would earn its place.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a 6-parameter creation tool, the description omits units, layer prerequisites, and the add_mtext alternative, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 only 50%; color, layer and insert are documented in the schema, but height and rotation (and the units they are expressed in) appear in neither schema description nor tool description. The description mentions only the insertion point, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource (add single-line text) and pins the geometry ('at the insertion point, left baseline'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling add_mtext. It never names add_mtext explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance beyond the implicit 'single-line' qualifier. With add_mtext as an obvious sibling, the description should route the agent ('use add_mtext for multi-line/paragraph text') but does not.

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