masks_manage

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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, so the description adds real value: it discloses the reference-safety rule that deletion is blocked while any SVG or CSS reference remains, which an agent cannot infer from the schema. It omits other behavioral facts (concurrency via expectedRevision, what 'typed opaque' means for rendering), keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the create action and the resource. The three clauses are tightly packed, which slightly hurts scannability but nothing is wasted.

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, and the reference-guard rule is covered. But a four-branch, mutation-heavy tool whose every branch requires expectedRevision should explain that optimistic-concurrency token and confirm that delete is one of the four supported actions, both of which are left to the schema.

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 reported at 100% and the action discriminators are self-documenting via const values, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds only indirect hints ('rectangular' implying x/y/width/height, 'explicit elements' implying targetIds) and never explains the required expectedRevision concurrency token.

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 specific verbs and resource: creates, applies, releases, and (implicitly) deletes SVG masks, with a distinctive qualifier ('typed opaque rectangular') that separates it from clips/gradients/patterns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings such as clips_manage or filters_manage, so the agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 three life-cycle operations are enumerated, which implies when each applies, and 'from explicit elements' hints that apply/release need target IDs rather than being document-wide. There is no explicit statement of when to choose masks over clips or another sibling, and no prerequisites or ordering guidance.

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