create_svg_icon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says 'Render and insert' implying a mutating operation, but it does not disclose whether it replaces existing content, whether it requires a selected parent, or what happens on the canvas (e.g., does it create a new frame or overlay?). It omits potential side effects like resizing or default positioning. This is a gap for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 is a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the primary action. It clearly states the resource and destination without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured to mention key parameters, but it is concise and not verbose.

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 tool has 8 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It does not explain the default behavior for x/y when not provided, whether the SVG auto-fits to given dimensions, or how the fill option interacts with multi-path SVGs. While the schema documents each parameter, an agent might need more operational context to use the tool correctly in a complex design environment. The description is adequate but not complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds context on the purpose (scalable vector graphics) but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides. For instance, the 'svg' parameter is clear as raw XML, but the description does not clarify the relationship between width/height and the SVG's intrinsic size. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Render and insert'), a resource ('scalable SVG vector graphics'), and the destination ('onto the canvas'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_frame, create_rectangle, and create_ellipse by focusing on SVG content rather than basic shapes. However, it could be more explicit about the output being an icon/frame, but the tool name helps.

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 (rendering SVGs into the canvas) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. Sibling tools like create_frame or create_component_instance exist, but no exclusionary language is given. The purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage, but it lacks explicit routing.

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