figma_add_text_to_slide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that formatting options are supported but does not disclose permissions needed, error behavior for invalid slide IDs, whether the operation returns the created node, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with 13 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two efficient sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence summarizing supported formatting categories is somewhat redundant with the schema but still serves as a quick capability overview. There is no filler.

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 creation tool with 13 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the tool does but omits the return value, error conditions, and positioning context. The schema fully covers parameter semantics, so the remaining gap is primarily behavioral rather than parametric, making it minimally adequate.

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 the schema already documents all 13 parameters in detail. The description adds a high-level summary of font, color, alignment, and formatting support but no syntax, defaults, or parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Add a new text element to a specific slide." This clearly distinguishes creation from mutation siblings like figma_set_text, though it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives. The second sentence adds capability scope, making the purpose easy to grasp.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as figma_set_text or figma_add_shape_to_slide. Usage is only implied by the phrase "Add a new text element to a specific slide," with no exclusions or preconditions stated.

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