Create, update, delete, or apply typed SVG dots and stripes patterns in defs for fills and strokes, without writing raw XML or CSS.
Creates, replaces, applies or deletes typed SVG dots/stripes patterns in defs without accepting free XML or CSS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| revision | Yes | ||
| targetIds | No | ||
| backupCreated | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, which the delete action already implies. The description does add genuinely useful behavioral context: patterns are 'typed' and free XML/CSS is rejected, so the agent knows input is schema-validated rather than raw markup. It says nothing about the expectedRevision optimistic-concurrency contract or what apply does to existing target objects.
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 front-loaded sentence that packs the action list, the resource, and the key input constraint with zero filler. Nothing is redundant with the title or needs trimming.
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?
For a four-variant mutating tool the description covers all actions and the input-restriction invariant, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The remaining gap is the expectedRevision concurrency semantics, which an agent calling a destructive write tool would benefit from knowing.
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 100%, so the schema itself carries the parameter burden and baseline is 3. The description only gestures at the action set; it adds no detail on spec fields, paint, targetIds, or the hash-format expectedRevision beyond what the schema already encodes.
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 the resource (typed SVG dots/stripes patterns in defs) and enumerates the verbs (creates, replaces, applies, deletes), which map cleanly onto the schema's create/update/delete/apply oneOf branches. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling managers like filters_manage, gradients_manage, or markers_manage, but the pattern-specific scope is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tool is named. The agent must infer that this is the right tool for pattern work purely from the name and verb list; there is no mention of revision-conflict handling, ordering of apply vs create, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.