filters_manage

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by stating it will not accept arbitrary XML (input is strictly schema-validated) and that deletion is 'safe', but it omits the optimistic-concurrency model implied by expectedRevision and gives no detail on what deletion actually does or whether it is recoverable.

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 that puts the operations and resource first and the XML constraint last. Dense but not padded; the only mild weakness is that the long verb list is harder to scan than a short lead clause would be.

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 not be described. However, this is a five-variant discriminated union (create/update/delete/apply/release) where each action requires a different parameter set; the description explains none of that per-action structure and omits the revision/conflict model, leaving real gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so the schema carries the parameter burden and the baseline is 3. The description does add one useful mapping by naming the filter kinds that correspond to spec.kind, but it says nothing about path, workspaceId, expectedRevision, id, or targetIds.

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 a concrete resource (SVG filters) and enumerates the operations (create, replace, apply, release, delete) plus the supported filter types (blur, drop-shadow, blend, color-matrix), so an agent immediately knows this is the filter-management tool rather than masks_manage or gradients_manage. It does not name any sibling explicitly, and the verb 'replaces' does not match the schema's 'update' action token, 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 operation list implicitly tells the agent which action to pick, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (workspace scoping, expectedRevision concurrency token), and no alternative tool named. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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