document_normalize_ids

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

Annotations declare only destructiveHint=true; the description usefully adds the exact mutation surface (which reference types get rewritten) and the no-op guarantee that already-valid unique IDs are untouched. That is real added context on top of the annotation, though it omits revision-conflict behavior despite the required expectedRevision parameter.

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?

Two short sentences, mutation scope front-loaded, preservation guarantee second. No filler, no restatement of the name, nothing that could be cut.

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, revision-guarded mutation with five undocumented parameters, the description covers what happens to IDs but not the conditions for calling it safely. With 0% schema coverage it should explain at least the prefix and assignMissingIds semantics; the output schema does relieve it of describing return values.

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% across five parameters, so the schema gives no meaning for path, workspaceId, prefix, assignMissingIds, or expectedRevision. The description loosely implies missing IDs may be assigned ('invalid or duplicate IDs') but never explains prefix defaults, the assignMissingIds toggle, or the revision-matching requirement, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 description gives a concrete verb+resource ('normalizes invalid or duplicate SVG IDs') plus the scope of side effects ('rewrites supported local href, URL, ARIA and CSS references'). It is clearly distinguishable in content from vague siblings like defs_vacuum or document_optimize, but it never names or contrasts with an alternative tool, so it stops short of the 5 tier.

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?

Beyond the adverb 'Explicitly' hinting that normalization is a deliberate opt-in step, there is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to call this before export, as part of an import cleanup, or instead of defs_vacuum/document_optimize.

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