document_settings

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

The annotation destructiveHint already signals mutation risk. The description adds a key behavioral constraint: updates require the current document revision. This is valuable context but it doesn't elaborate on failure modes, idempotency, or the safety of read operations. It neither contradicts the annotation nor fully discloses behavior, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences and front-loads the main function. It is concise without fluff, though the first sentence's phrasing is slightly awkward. Overall, it earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The description does not explain the distinction between read and update operations, the meaning of path and workspaceId, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a tool with a nested settings object and revision precondition, significant context is missing. An agent would need to infer critical details from the schema and surrounding tools.

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%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It only addresses expectedRevision via the phrase 'current document revision', leaving path, workspaceId, and the settings object fields unexplained. The nested settings fields are self-descriptive from names, but required params path and workspaceId are not clarified, so the description only partially compensates.

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 reads or updates typed Inkscape page, desk, and border display settings. The verb-resource pairing is specific and distinguishes it from tools like document_resize or elements_create, though it doesn't name alternatives. The term 'typed' is slightly ambiguous but overall the purpose is clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use when adjusting display settings' or exclude cases like read-only inspection. An agent must infer usage from the schema and context, which is insufficient for proper selection among 19 sibling tools.

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