paths_flatten

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

destructiveHint=true already signals a destructive operation, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the annotation: 'Irreversibly' reinforces non-recoverability, and 'in a staged copy' discloses that the operation is applied to a staged workspace copy rather than the live document. The 'verified native Inkscape action' clause also hints at the execution mechanism. It stops short of stating auth/permission needs or failure behavior.

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 dense sentence with the critical constraint ('Irreversibly') front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 description adequately conveys the destructive, staged-copy nature of the operation. It is somewhat thin on the optimistic-concurrency semantics of expectedRevision and the meaning of path/workspaceId for a five-required-param destructive tool, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 params, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'two to 100' maps to the ids minItems/maxItems bounds and 'Irreversibly' hints at the confirmIrreversible flag. But expectedRevision (concurrency token), path, and workspaceId are left entirely to the schema, leaving real gaps.

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 (flattens) and resource (SVG paths) with precise scope: two to 100 overlapping, explicitly selected paths. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings like paths_combine, paths_boolean, or elements_flatten_transform, leaving the agent to infer why 'flatten' differs from 'combine' or 'boolean'.

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 phrase 'two to 100 explicitly selected overlapping SVG paths' implies preconditions (paths must already be selected and must overlap), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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