path_node_edit

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully adds that edits target explicit absolute linear nodes and reject raw SVG path data, which tells the agent about the coordinate model and accepted command set. However, it never mentions the optimistic-concurrency requirement (expectedRevision) whose failure mode will block any edit, nor what is lost on deletes.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the primary capability (editing nodes) is front-loaded before the secondary subpath operation. It is efficient, though the trailing negative clause could be tightened.

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?

This is a high-complexity mutation tool with a nine-variant operation union and zero schema descriptions; an output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description omits the operation vocabulary and the revision-scoping behavior entirely. For a tool of this complexity it leaves too much for the agent to reconstruct from the raw 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 0% across five required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies a segment 'index' and a path/subpath scope, but says nothing about id, workspaceId, expectedRevision, or the nine distinct operation actions (delete, insert, set_command, expand_smooth, set_quadratic_handle, set_cubic_handles, set_arc_parameters, open/close_subpath).

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 a specific verb and resource (editing path nodes) plus a secondary capability (opening/closing subpaths), which separates it from generic path tools like path_modify or paths_combine. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation from path_node_move in particular is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over the many path-editing siblings (path_node_move, path_modify, path_break_apart, path_reverse). The clause about 'not accepting raw SVG path data' is a constraint, not a routing rule, and no preconditions or exclusions are given.

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