document_optimize

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description adds real value by stating 'the source document is never modified' and disclosing the out-of-band dependency on an Inkscape visual-regression render before publication. It still doesn't say what happens if the render mismatches or what gets written to the derived output.

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 dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence is slightly jargon-heavy but earns its place by conveying the render gate and non-destructive guarantee.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and revision-tracking parameters, the description leaves too much undocumented. It also omits any differentiation from the overlapping 'defs_vacuum' sibling, leaving the agent unable to confidently select this tool.

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 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only gestures at dryRun ('Plans or writes') and outputPath ('derived SVG'); visualTolerance, expectedRevision, and expectedOutputRevision are entirely unexplained despite having constrained ranges and patterns.

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?

States a specific action pair ('Plans or writes a derived SVG') and a precise scope constraint ('removes only unused top-level definitions'), which an agent can act on. It fails to differentiate from the sibling 'defs_vacuum', which appears to operate on the same domain, so it falls short of a 5.

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 mention that 'Publication requires a deterministic Inkscape visual-regression render' implies a two-phase plan/commit workflow, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus 'defs_vacuum' or when dryRun should be toggled, leaving routing to inference.

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