path_break_apart

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

Annotations carry only destructiveHint=true, so the description must add the behavioral profile. It discloses one valuable guarantee – existing references to the source ID are rejected before any mutation, i.e. fail-before-write – plus that IDs are caller-supplied. It omits what happens to the original element, revision-conflict semantics, and atomicity, so it is useful but incomplete.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the safety constraint. No filler, though the second sentence could be tighter.

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 explained, but this is a destructive multi-parameter mutation with zero schema documentation and only two sentences of description. Revision handling, ID ordering semantics, and the fate of the source element are all left to inference, which is thin for the tool's 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 0% across five required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only illuminates 'id' (source) and 'newIds' (caller-supplied targets), and implies 'path' is SVG path data, leaving 'expectedRevision' and 'workspaceId' entirely undefined and giving no mapping between newIds order and resulting segments.

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+resource ('Splits a compound SVG path') and the output shape ('into explicit, caller-supplied IDs'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling paths_combine and from path_modify. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to reach for this versus paths_combine, paths_flatten, or path_node_edit, nor what preconditions select it. The rejection clause is a behavior, not usage guidance.

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