Create Text

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

With only an openWorldHint annotation and no readOnly or destructive hints, the description carries the transparency burden. It simply states the action and styling options, without disclosing side effects, required parent context, or behavior on invalid input. The openWorldHint is not elaborated.

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 single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and object. No wasted words, perfectly sized for the purpose.

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 9 parameters, nested fontColor object, and openWorldHint, the one-sentence description is fairly sparse. It omits mention of the parent requirement (though present in schema) and potential side effects. However, the rich schema and presence of an output schema reduce the burden, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds minimal value by grouping 'font size/weight/color' but doesn't introduce any parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a text node') and names the key styling options (font size/weight/color). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_shape or create_frame.

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 such as text_set_content or text_set_style. It also omits prerequisites like obtaining parentNodeName from node_info, which is only mentioned in the schema, not in the description.

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