text_to_paths

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does well: it discloses irreversibility and that work happens on a staged copy, which tells the agent the original document is not mutated in place. It does not mention revision staleness or failure modes.

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, no filler, with the destructive/irreversible constraint front-loaded before the confirmation requirement.

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?

Good on safety and staging, and output schema coverage means return values need not be explained. But for a 5-param destructive tool with zero schema descriptions, the parameter semantics gap leaves an agent without what it needs to populate ids, path, and expectedRevision correctly.

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?

Five required parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description glosses only one implicitly ('caller must confirm' maps to confirmIrreversible). 'ids', 'path', 'workspaceId' and especially the optimistic-concurrency 'expectedRevision' token are left unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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+resource: converting explicit SVG text element IDs to paths via Inkscape. The 'explicit text element IDs' qualifier distinguishes it from the broader objects_to_paths and text_path_manage siblings, though neither sibling is named for contrast.

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?

Implies the use case (converting live text to outlines) and states a precondition (caller must confirm the destructive conversion), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs objects_to_paths or text_path_manage, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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