create_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose non-obvious traits: default auto-width hug behavior (WIDTH_AND_HEIGHT + HUG) and the rule that fontStyle may be omitted for variable fonts. It stops short of side effects, error behavior, or what the call returns.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and each following clause adds usable detail (defaults, parent insertion, enum values, variable fonts). It is dense rather than bloated, though the parameter enumeration runs long in a single paragraph.

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 20-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the tricky parameters well but omits about half the inputs (x/y, name, fontSize, fillsHex, r/g/b) and says nothing about the returned node identity. Adequate but with clear gaps against the tool's complexity.

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 40% and the schema declares zero enums, so the description meaningfully compensates by spelling out allowed values for textAlignHorizontal, textAlignVertical, textAutoResize, and layoutSizingVertical/Horizontal, plus the variationSettings format. It leaves obvious params (x/y, name, characters, fontSize, fillsHex, r/g/b) undocumented, which is why it is not a 5.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Create a text node.' The resource is distinct from siblings like create_rectangle, create_frame, and set_text_content, so an agent can immediately tell which operation this is without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear conditional usage context — pass parentNodeId to insert into a frame/stack/slot, omit x/y inside auto layout and use index instead — but never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it. Solid context without explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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