draw_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '텍스트를 추가합니다' only states the action without any behavioral details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what happens to existing elements, if there are side effects (e.g., adding to a layer), or any performance/rate limits. For a tool with 14 parameters and no annotations, this is a critical gap in 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 extremely concise—a single phrase—with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. For conciseness alone, it scores perfectly as it avoids redundancy and is straightforward.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does in context (e.g., adding text to a drawing), behavioral aspects, usage scenarios, or output expectations. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on the description, making it inadequate for the tool's requirements.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 14 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'X 좌표' for x, '텍스트 내용' for text). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 '텍스트를 추가합니다' (Adds text) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'draw_text' without providing meaningful context. It doesn't specify what resource or context text is being added to (presumably a drawing/canvas), nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'draw_circle' or 'draw_rect' beyond the obvious difference in shape. The purpose is vague and minimally informative.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no indications of prerequisites, context (e.g., whether a canvas must be open), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'draw_path' or 'object_group'. The agent receives zero usage instructions beyond the tool name.

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