text.create

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 mentions markdown and LaTeX support, which adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether creation is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points for use cases and a specific alternative. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and readable.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (creation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job by covering purpose, usage, and some parameter semantics. It could be more complete by addressing behavioral aspects like error handling or return values, but it provides sufficient context for basic use, especially with the schema's 100% coverage.

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 three parameters (name, content, position). The description adds some value by clarifying that content supports markdown with LaTeX syntax ($...$ and $$...$$), which elaborates on the schema's description. However, it doesn't explain the 'position' parameter or provide additional context beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states the tool creates a 'Text (documentation) node' with markdown and LaTeX support, specifying the verb (create) and resource (text node). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'code.create' by emphasizing documentation and mathematical content, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all text-related tools like 'text.setContent'.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it lists ideal use cases (documentation, formulas, rich text, plans) and gives a clear alternative for CodeBook context ('Use codebook.addCell('text') instead'). This directly addresses when to use this tool versus an alternative, which is strong guidance.

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