remove_embroidery_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'returning it to a plain vector design' but does not clarify whether the operation is destructive (modifies in-place), what error conditions exist, or how the output is handled. The 'strip' action implies mutation, but safety context is missing.

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, making it concise, but it lacks structure. It does not break down information into readable parts (e.g., parameters, usage, effects). While every word contributes, the density of information is low.

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 complexity of 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not describe return values, parameter options, or behavioral nuances. An agent would need additional information to correctly invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for 5 parameters. The description only hints at 'parameters and command symbols', corresponding to 'remove_params' and 'remove_commands', but fails to explain 'remove_print_settings', 'output_svg_path', or 'svg_path'. The agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Strip') and clearly identifies the resource ('Ink/Stitch parameters and/or command symbols from an SVG'). It explains the tool's purpose unambiguously and distinguishes it from siblings like 'cleanup_document' by focusing on embroidery-specific data removal.

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 when converting an SVG with embroidery settings to a plain vector design, but it does not mention when to avoid using it (e.g., when retaining embroidery data) or compare it to similar tools like 'cleanup_document'. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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