path_effects_manage

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

destructiveHint=true is already declared by annotations, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by clarifying the two destructive actions and by explicitly excluding parameter editing and GUI-dependent rendering, but it omits reversibility, what happens to the detached paths, and any concurrency semantics.

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 functional scope front-loaded and the exclusions trailing. No filler or redundancy, though it is quite terse relative to the tool's complexity.

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 destructive mutation with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and a required revision token, the description is materially incomplete. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the parameter and concurrency mechanics are left entirely to the agent.

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 6 parameters (including an expectedRevision optimistic-lock token, workspaceId, effectId, and the action enum), and the description documents none of them. It hints that paths and effect identifiers are involved but adds no syntax, format, or constraint guidance needed to fill these fields.

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 two concrete operations (detaching local paths from an LPE, deleting an unreferenced local effect) with a specific resource, so the agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It stops short of naming its read-only sibling path_effects_inspect, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Negative guidance is present ("never edits effect parameters or invokes GUI-dependent LPE rendering"), which helps bound the tool, but there is no positive when-to-use statement and no routing to path_effects_inspect for the read case. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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