paths_boolean

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description adds real value by disclosing the transactional behavior: work happens in a staged copy and the sanitized result is published atomically, which tells the agent the operation is all-or-nothing. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g. what happens on a revision mismatch or an unsanitizable input).

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 no filler; the operation scope comes first and the ambiguous operand ordering follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no explanation, and the destructive/staging semantics are covered. However, for a five-parameter destructive mutation the definition omits the meaning of the required revision token and the document path/workspace addressing, leaving real gaps.

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 carries the whole burden. It usefully explains the operand roles for ids[0]/ids[1] on difference, division, and cut, but leaves expectedRevision (clearly a concurrency guard), path, workspaceId, and the enum values union/intersection/exclusion 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?

The definition names a specific verb and resource ('Runs an allowlisted native boolean, division, or cut operation on exactly two safe SVG path IDs') and adds a scope qualifier ('native', 'exactly two', 'staged copy') that separates it from the broader paths_combine sibling. An agent can predict the operation without opening the schema.

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 gives operand-ordering guidance for three of six operations, which is genuine usage help, but never states when to pick this tool over paths_combine (both operate on path booleans). No exclusions, prerequisites, or prerequisites around the revision precondition are given.

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