Create Path Text

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuine execution context ('background mode', 'never invokes Computer Use'), but says nothing about whether an existing path text is replaced or how failures on a bad path_uuid behave.

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 short sentences, purpose first, no padding or repetition of the title. The second sentence is meta rather than domain behavior, but it is brief and does carry information.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the definition is adequate but thin: it never says what the call yields (e.g., a new text-frame handle/name) or what happens on an invalid path_uuid. The background-mode note helps, but the create-side contract is left to the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, including the useful cross-reference to list_fonts in font_name. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline at full coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a text frame that flows along a path'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling create_text_frame. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable 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 guidance on when to use this instead of create_text_frame or create_path, and no prerequisites stated (e.g., that path_uuid must reference an existing path item, obtainable via get_path_items). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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