path_modify

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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does add value: it flags the operation as irreversible, notes work happens in a staged copy, and discloses that legacy inset/outset/offset requests fail with a recoverable error rather than silently doing something else. It stops short of stating permission, revision-conflict, or failure-recovery behavior beyond that.

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 supported operation and its irreversibility front-loaded before the unsupported-legacy caveat. Every clause carries information, though 'verified native action' is padding that could be plainer.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers irreversibility and the failing operations. For a six-parameter destructive mutation with zero schema descriptions, it leaves the revision-precondition and confirmation parameters entirely unexplained, so an agent could not call it correctly from the 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 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it names no parameters directly. It does convey that only the 'simplify' value of the operation enum is functional, which is genuinely useful beyond the schema, but confirmIrreversible, expectedRevision, workspaceId, id, and path remain entirely 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'simplifies one SVG path', which separates it from paths_flatten, paths_boolean, and path_node_edit. It further scopes the taool by declaring only the native simplify action is viable on this baseline. The jargon 'verified native action in a staged copy' is vague, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It effectively rules out three enum values (inset, outset, offset) by stating they return a recoverable unavailable-capability error, which is usable when-not-to guidance. However, it gives no positive guidance on when to reach for path_modify versus sibling path tools like paths_flatten or path_node_edit, so the routing context is only implied.

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