text_path_manage

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

With destructiveHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds useful scope detail: only existing text/tspans are bound, no markup payloads are accepted, and only local (not remote) paths are valid. However, it never mentions the required expectedRevision optimistic-concurrency token or revision-conflict behavior, which is material for a mutation tool.

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 covering both modes and the input restriction, with zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the tool name or schema.

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 description is sufficient for the agent to choose and call the tool: it identifies attach/detach modes, qualifying text, and scope limits, while the schema supplies ids, offsets and the required revision token, and the output schema covers results. No critical gap remains.

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 coverage is reported at 100%, so the schema carries the parameter burden and 3 is the baseline. The description does add two semantic points beyond the schema — 'including tspans' qualifies textId and 'without accepting markup' clarifies that text is referenced, not supplied inline — but it says nothing about startOffset placement along the path.

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?

Names a specific pair of verbs (attach/detach) on a concrete resource (text, including tspans, bound to a local SVG path), which is enough to separate it from siblings like text_to_paths or text_manage. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to attach vs detach, no prerequisites (e.g. that the path and text must already exist in the same workspace), and no named alternatives. The only implicit constraint is 'local SVG path', which hints remote resources are unsupported but is never stated as a rule.

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