silhouette_offset_shape

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds real value by framing the result as a NEW contour derived from an existing shape, implying the original is retained. It does not say whether the new shape is selected/returned, whether offsets can self-intersect at extreme values, or what units/limits apply.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core behavior and sign convention front-loaded, followed by the join option. The parenthetical use cases earn their place as decision aids; nothing is redundant.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description covers offset direction and join style but leaves the returned result (new shape id?) and four parameters unexplained. Adequate to invoke, incomplete to predict outcomes.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does explain the sign semantics of offset_mm and enumerates the join values (round/miter/bevel), which the schema lacks as an enum. But design, shape_id, label, and layer receive no explanation at all, so half the parameters remain 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a new ... offset contour from an existing circle or closed polygon') and clarifies the sign convention of the offset. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the add_* siblings by operating on an existing shape_id, though it never names an alternative.

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?

Concrete use cases (print-and-cut bleed borders, shaker frames, layered mats) imply when to reach for this tool, which is helpful context. However there is no explicit when-not guidance, no note that the source shape must exist and be closed/circular, and no routing to siblings.

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