objects_to_paths

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

The destructiveHint annotation already tells the agent this is a mutation, but the description adds substantial non-obvious context: the conversion is irreversible, it runs 'through Inkscape in a staged copy,' and the caller must explicitly confirm. That is real behavioral value beyond structured data, though it does not discuss revision conflicts or what happens to the original objects.

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 with the irreversible nature and staging model front-loaded, and no filler. The second sentence mildly restates the schema's confirmIrreversible const constraint, costing a little efficiency.

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 description covers the key risk (irreversibility) and the staging/confirmation model. For a six-parameter destructive mutation with zero schema coverage, though, the expectedRevision and path parameters remain opaque, so an agent could still misconstruct the call.

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 six required parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It loosely maps to three of them ('selected' to ids, 'objects or their strokes' to the mode enum, 'must confirm' to confirmIrreversible) but says nothing about path, workspaceId, or the critical expectedRevision concurrency token, leaving half the surface unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb+resource+target ('converts selected basic vector objects or their strokes to SVG paths'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the similarly named text_to_paths without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly naming or excluding a sibling tool, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

Usage is implied by 'selected basic vector objects or their strokes,' which signals the tool operates on element ids with a mode choice, and the confirmation requirement signals this is a deliberate destructive step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus paths_flatten, paths_combine, or text_to_paths, which are the most likely confusion points.

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