glyph_edit

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

The description discloses atomicity, that offcurve points are handles, that replacements must be explicit, and that removed IDs are returned. These details go beyond the annotations (which only indicate read-only and destructive hints) and give an agent useful behavioral context about how the tool operates.

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 three short sentences with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and includes only essential behavioral notes, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool is complex with many operation types, yet the description omits critical context such as the need for expected_revision for optimistic concurrency, the meaning of 'typed' operations, and error scenarios. It does mention removal returns, and the output schema exists, but overall the description leaves gaps for such 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 should compensate, but it only offers a few hints (explicit replacements, removed IDs) that relate to a subset of operations. It does not explain required parameters like project_id, expected_revision, or the operations structure, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 action ('Apply an atomic typed vector batch') and the resource ('a named glyph'), and it implies modification, distinguishing it from read-only tools like glyph_get. The mention of 'removed IDs' and 'replacements' further clarifies it as an editing operation.

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 that this tool is used for editing glyphs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like glyph_get or spacing_edit, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as an open project. It provides no exclusionary guidance.

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