ai_modifyItems

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

The description lists 'delete' among the tool's capabilities while the annotations declare destructiveHint=false, creating a direct contradiction about whether the tool can destroy content. It also gives no detail on irreversibility, permissions, or response behavior for destructive actions.

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 definition is one dense but front-loaded sentence, with the core purpose stated first and the capability list following. It is efficient, though the long dash-separated list is harder to scan than a structured breakdown.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and very low schema description coverage, the description lists capabilities but omits how operations compose, what happens when conflicting parameters are supplied, error behavior, and return information. The contradiction around delete further undermines completeness for safe invocation.

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 only 13% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It successfully maps many operations to parameters and adds useful formats/units for moveBy, position, resize, and rotate, but omits the document parameter, default behavior, and interaction rules between parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('modify items') and enumerates the operations it supports, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as ai_select or ai_layers, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It specifies targeting by name or selection, which implies when the tool is applicable, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives to use for selection, layer management, or shape creation. Usage is only implied.

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