path_reverse

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

The only annotation is destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: mutations retain the path ID and presentation, and curve/arc inputs are rejected rather than silently mishandled. It does not mention the expectedRevision concurrency precondition or any partial-failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded and the constraint follows immediately, so a scanning agent gets the essentials first.

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 destructive nature is covered by annotations. However, for a four-parameter mutating tool with zero schema documentation, the description omits the revision-guard and workspace context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 four required parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only implicitly touches 'id' (path ID) and 'path' (SVG path data); workspaceId and the required expectedRevision are never explained, and no format expectations for the path string are given.

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 concrete verb and resource — 'Reverses line-only SVG path subpaths' — plus an explicit scope constraint ('line-only') and the preservation of path ID and presentation. An agent can distinguish it from path_modify or path_break_apart by the reversal + line-only framing, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

The description implies usage by telling the agent curves and arcs are rejected, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (e.g., a node-editing or boolean-path sibling) or what to do when a non-line path must be reversed. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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