Append a Show Text dialog

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 usefully discloses the exact emitted structure (command 101 plus one 401 per line) and a failure mode it avoids, but says nothing about append-vs-overwrite semantics, permissions, or whether existing page content is preserved.

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?

Front-loaded purpose in the first sentence, with the technical data-model detail confined to a second sentence. It is dense but every clause is relevant to correct invocation; 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 10-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers the tricky data-shape concern well but leaves the relationship between eventId and pageIndex, and the append/overwrite behavior, unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 50% and the description compensates by naming the command 101 payload order [faceName, faceIndex, background, positionType, speakerName] and clarifying that each line lands in parameters[0]. This adds real meaning beyond the partially-documented schema, though it does not cover mapId/eventId/pageIndex.

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: 'Add a Show Text dialog to an event page,' and explains the underlying MZ command shape. An agent can tell what it produces, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like add_commands, set_commands, or live_dialog.

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?

Usage is only implied: the closing note that this 'builds that shape so lines can never end up as null' hints at why to prefer it over raw add_commands, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The agent must infer the routing.

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