create_text

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists visual capabilities and does not mention the mutation side effect (adding a shape to a page), required permissions, or return behavior. For a creation tool, this leaves significant ambiguity.

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 sentence, immediately front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise given the detailed schema that follows.

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 27 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention the required fileId/pageId, the fact that this creates a new shape in a page, or any expected result/return value, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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%, with each parameter already documented. The description adds a high-level categorization (color, styling, alignment, shadows, blur, blend modes) but no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 a text shape' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_rectangle, create_circle, and create_frame. It also highlights key capabilities (color, styling, alignment, shadows, blur, blend modes) that define the tool's scope.

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 implies usage for creating text shapes but does not explicitly compare with alternatives. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, though the tool name and sibling context make the primary use case clear.

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