flowed_text_convert

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

Annotations only mark destructiveHint=true; the description adds material context beyond that: the conversion is lossy, it requires explicit confirmation, and complex/multi-region flows are rejected rather than partially handled. It stops short of saying exactly what is lost (styling, wrapping, spacing) or whether the operation is reversible.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the gating requirement front-loaded. Every clause carries information.

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, and the lossy-confirmation behavior is well covered. However, for a five-required-parameter destructive tool with no schema descriptions, the concurrency token (expectedRevision), the workspace/path/id addressing model, and any undo/restore path are unaddressed.

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 required parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. It hints at confirmLossy semantics ('only after explicit lossy confirmation') and the 'one-region' qualifier touches flow selection, but expectedRevision (an optimistic-concurrency hash), workspaceId, id, and path are never explained.

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 verb (converts), a precise source resource (one simple one-region Inkscape flowRoot), and a precise result (editable SVG text). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like flowed_text_inspect and text_to_paths by scoping to flowRoot conversion and rejecting complex flows.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use ('only after explicit lossy confirmation') and an exclusion ('complex flows are rejected'), which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. It does not, however, name a named alternative (e.g., flowed_text_inspect for inspection, text_to_paths for outline conversion) for the rejected cases.

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