Vectorizer

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent profile, so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing that files are written to disk and their paths returned rather than returned inline. It does not mention credit charging, plan gating for unlimited_bundle, or job timeout behaviour.

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?

Three sentences, purpose and format mapping front-loaded before the 'Best for' rationale and the return-behaviour note. No filler or restated name/title.

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?

For a 14-parameter conversion tool with no output schema, the description still covers the goal, the use case, the output-format families and where results land. Annotations carry the safety profile, and the schema covers every parameter in depth.

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 100%, so all 14 parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the ready_for/format groupings the description repeats. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('convert the design to vector') and names the exact output families (png/tiff/eps for Photoshop, svg/pdf/eps for Illustrator). No sibling tool in the list competes with this capability, and the scope is unambiguous.

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 'Best for' sentence gives a concrete trigger: turning flat-colour raster art like a JPEG logo or print into editable, scalable vector. It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of the explicit routing that a 5 requires.

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