clips_manage

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

With only destructiveHint=true in the annotations, the description carries real weight and delivers: it discloses the shape constraint ('typed rectangular'), the scoping rule ('from explicit elements'), and a genuine referential-integrity behavior ('prevents deletion while any SVG or CSS reference remains'). It still omits concurrency behavior around expectedRevision and what happens when a guarded delete is rejected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with three dense, information-bearing clauses and no filler. It is slightly over-compressed, since the explicit 'delete' action is only implied through the guard clause.

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 complex four-variant polymorphic tool, the description covers the create/apply/release lifecycle plus a delete constraint, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Remaining gaps (revision/optimistic-concurrency semantics, delete prerequisites) are secondary.

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 reported at 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already encodes the four action variants, required fields, patterns, and the spec object. The description adds only marginal meaning ('rectangular' clarifies the spec geometry) and says nothing about expectedRevision or targetIds semantics.

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 names the specific resource (typed rectangular SVG clipPaths) and the operations (create, apply, release, and implicitly delete via the deletion guard), so an agent can tell this apart from generic element tools. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby masks_manage sibling or explain the clip-vs-mask boundary.

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 multi-action schema plus the phrase 'applies or releases them from explicit elements' hints at when to use apply/release, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tooling named. The deletion constraint is the closest thing to guidance.

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