figjam_create_shape_with_text

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a write operation, yet it discloses only that shapeType defaults to ROUNDED_RECTANGLE. It says nothing about where a shape lands when x/y are omitted (all 10 params are optional), what the call returns, whether a board must be open/focused, or permission requirements.

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 purpose and usage context are front-loaded in one tight sentence, which is good structure. The second paragraph re-lists all 11 enum values verbatim from the schema, which is largely redundant and pads the definition.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and all parameters are optional, so an agent still lacks critical calling context: default placement when x/y are absent and what identifier is returned for later connector/shape operations. The purpose is well covered, but the operational picture is not.

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%, so every parameter is already documented with units, ranges, and hex patterns; the baseline is therefore 3. The description adds only the shapeType default and a loose grouping of 'size, colors, font', which is marginal value over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a labeled shape on a FigJam board') plus the controllable attributes (size, colors, font). The explicit shape-type enumeration and the example use cases (flowchart nodes, process diagrams) make it unmistakable against siblings like figjam_create_sticky, figjam_create_section, and figjam_create_table.

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?

'Use for flowchart nodes, process diagrams, and visual organization' gives concrete contexts where this tool is the right pick. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use figjam_create_sticky for notes, figjam_create_connector to link shapes), so there is no explicit routing rule.

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