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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds only the selection criterion (shapes crossing the frame). It does not disclose what is destroyed or altered (paths truncated? hidden? masks applied?), whether the change is reversible, or what happens to shapes not crossing the frame.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing wastes space; however, it is terse to the point of under-specification given three undocumented parameters and a destructive operation.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent knows only the rough intent and cannot determine where to apply it or what state it leaves behind.

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 0% and the description supplies no parameter information at all. The ambiguous 'artboard' parameter (integer or string, i.e. ID vs name) and 'include_clipped' are entirely undocumented anywhere, and the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 verb 'clip' and the object 'shapes that cross their artboard's frame' give a rough idea, but the description never distinguishes this from the sibling clip_shapes, nor does it clarify whether 'clip' means mask, crop, or destructively cut the geometry. An agent sees two similarly named clipping tools and gets no basis for choosing.

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 statement of when to use this rather than clip_shapes, resolve_overflow, or fit_to_box, and no prerequisite or exclusion information. The only implied scope is 'shapes that cross their artboard's frame', which is a selection condition, not usage guidance.

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