guides_grids_manage

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows mutations are possible. The description adds useful scope clarification ('document-local', 'never reads or changes global Inkscape preferences'), but doesn't disclose the required revision preconditions for mutations or what gets destroyed on delete.

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, no filler. The scope constraint is front-loaded and the negative guarantee follows immediately.

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 7-variant action-dispatch tool with mutation and deletion actions plus expectedRevision concurrency requirements, the description omits the action model entirely. An agent cannot infer that it must choose between inspect/create/update/delete for guides vs grids from this description alone.

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% and the oneOf variants are highly structured, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond scope, which is baseline-appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states verb+resource: inspects and changes document-local guides and xygrids. The scope ('document-local' vs 'global preferences') is a meaningful distinguishing detail, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools despite many *_manage siblings existing.

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 implies this tool handles guides/grids in documents, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the action-based dispatch (inspect/guide_create/guide_update/guide_delete/grid_create/grid_update/grid_delete), and no mention of expectedRevision-based concurrency semantics.

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