add_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. It discloses font choices, line-wrapping behavior for max_width, and centered placement when x/y are omitted, but omits whether it always creates a new layer, how the layer is named, or any side effects/return value.

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?

Very brief and front-loaded, with the core resource statement first and parameter hints compact. The fragment 'Text layer.' is minimal but not wasteful; the font list earns its length by enumerating options.

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 15-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is far too incomplete. It covers only font, wrapping, and centering, leaving most styling and project/name parameters and lifecycle behavior unexplained.

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 0% for 15 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains font values, max_width wrapping, and x/y centering, but leaves bold, size, color, align, italic, line_spacing, stroke_width, stroke_color, name, and project entirely undocumented.

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 names the resource ('Text layer') and, combined with the add_text name, makes clear this creates a text layer rather than modifying one. It does not explicitly distinguish from set_text or add_shape, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

Provides behavioral cues ('max_width>0 wraps lines', 'Without x/y it is centered') and a follow-up step ('then align_layer to place it'), which implies usage but never states when to choose add_text over set_text or other add_* tools. Context is implied rather than explicit.

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