Create Text Frame

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

Annotations already declare the write/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: it runs in background mode without activating Illustrator and never invokes Computer Use, which tells the agent this call will not hijack the user's UI session. It stops short of describing return behavior or how the new frame is identified.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second clause is slightly redundant ('without activating Illustrator' vs 'never invokes Computer Use'), which keeps it from a 5.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose and execution mode but omits selection guidance against sibling creators and says nothing about what is returned (e.g., the new frame's id/name). The annotation set is minimal, so the description leaves gaps an agent must infer.

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% and the schema is unusually rich (coordinate_system, contents, font_name, fill variants all documented). The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever and no cross-parameter relationships (e.g., width/height only applying to 'area' kind), so baseline 3 is correct.

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 says 'Create a text frame,' which names a concrete verb and resource rather than a vague process, so it is more than empty noise. However it essentially restates the tool name/title, and it does not differentiate from adjacent creation tools such as create_path_text, create_rectangle, or create_path. No scope or output is characterized.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (create_path_text, create_rectangle, etc.), no prerequisites, and no conditions. The only sentence beyond the purpose describes execution mode, which is behavioral rather than usage guidance.

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