cleanup_document

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

The description discloses removal of objects and dry run mode, but with no annotations, it misses details on whether the operation is reversible, what the default output path behavior is (in-place or to output_svg_path), and how thresholds are applied.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load purpose. Every word is necessary; no redundancy.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context for proper tool invocation. Missing parameter explanations and return value info make it incomplete for a complex tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains only the 'dry_run' parameter. Other 9 parameters (thresholds, flags, paths) are not described, leaving the agent without meaning for most options.

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 the tool removes tiny/empty objects that cause thread breaks, using a specific verb (remove) and resource (document). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the embroidery context makes it distinct.

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 mentions dry_run behavior and default, implying usage for inspecting removals before committing. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool vs alternatives like transform_elements or remove_embroidery_settings.

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