create_text_on_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' suggests a write operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions needed, whether this modifies existing compositions, what happens on failure, or what the return value is. It lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 4 parameters (including complex nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'create' means in this context, what gets returned, error conditions, or how this differs from similar text-creation tools. The agent would struggle to use this correctly.

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 75%, providing good documentation for parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'path' but doesn't explain the relationship between text and path vertices or how textProperties relate to 'add_text_layer_advanced'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 'Create text that follows a path' clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('text'), but it's vague about what 'follows a path' means in this context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_text_layer' by specifying path-following, but doesn't clarify if this creates a new layer or modifies existing text.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_text_layer' or 'add_text_layer_advanced'. The description implies text creation with path constraints, but doesn't specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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