eda_sch_primitive_text_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return type (ISCH_PrimitiveText | undefined) and the possibility of an undefined result, which is useful. However, it does not describe mutation effects on the document, coordinate system/units for x/y, whether an active document is required, or what the returned object contains. The disclosure is partial.

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 a dense signature dump plus two minimal Chinese lines. It is not overly verbose, and the signature is front-loaded, but most of the content is mechanical signature text rather than curated guidance. There is no wasted prose, yet the two human-written lines ('创建文本', 'returns: 文本图元对象') add little beyond what the signature already conveys.

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?

This is an 11-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must do substantial work. It provides the full signature but omits coordinate units, active-document requirements, failure semantics beyond 'undefined', and the meaning of the returned object. For an agent to call this correctly it needs more context than is given.

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 schema's args array contains empty items ({}), so the schema provides no parameter information. The description compensates by enumerating all 11 parameters with types and optionality markers in the signature. This adds genuine meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain semantics like units for x/y, what ESCH_PrimitiveTextAlignMode values exist, or the meaning of textColor format, so it is not complete.

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 states a specific verb (create) and resource (text primitive) via '创建文本' and the signature sch_PrimitiveText.create. It is clearly distinguished from sibling text tools (delete, get, modify, get_all) by the create verb. An agent can tell this is the creation tool without ambiguity.

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 tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. It does not mention that a schematic document must be active, or that x/y coordinates require a specific unit system. The when-to-use context is entirely absent.

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