paths_combine

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the merge-is-destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds useful behavioral constraints (attribute matching, ID cleanup rules that could otherwise break references), but says nothing about reversibility, permission needs, or the optimistic-concurrency behavior implied by expectedRevision.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and immediately qualifies it with the governing constraints. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

The existence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but for a destructive, four-required-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, one conditional sentence is thin. Key operational details (what the expectedRevision guard does, what path targets, resulting element identity) are absent.

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% and the 4 required parameters (ids, path, workspaceId, expectedRevision) are undocumented. The description only indirectly hints that 'ids' are the paths to combine; it never explains path, workspaceId, or that expectedRevision is a concurrency guard, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Combines') and resource ('same-parent SVG paths'), plus the exact preconditions under which combining is allowed. It is clearly distinct from siblings like paths_boolean or elements_group, though it never names an alternative sibling explicitly.

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 specifies the conditions that gate the operation (same parent, matching presentation attributes, no live ID references), which implies when it can be used, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as paths_boolean or elements_group, nor any prerequisites like revision handling.

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