create_icon

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the server fetches SVG from api.iconify.design, the plugin renders as vectors, and options like tinting with color and placing inside parentId. However, it does not cover error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the icon is not found.

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?

The description consists of two well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word adds value. No unnecessary information.

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?

Given the 7 required/optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: fetching SVG, rendering, tinting, and placement. It could mention the return value or confirmation of creation, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 43% (icon, size, color described). The description adds context for color (tinted), parentId (placed inside), and default size (24). But it does not clarify x, y, or name parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states the tool creates an icon on the canvas from the Iconify catalog, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_node and create_image_from_url by mentioning the Iconify catalog and the SVG fetching process.

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 implies usage for adding icons from Iconify's catalog (200k+ icons), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_node or create_image_from_url. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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