insert_icon

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden. It states the icon is rendered as PNG with optional color customization, but omits details like how the canvas is affected, whether the icon replaces existing elements, or if any selection occurs. Given the complexity of canvas operations, more disclosure is warranted.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Every part earns its place: action, resource, rendering output, and customization option.

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 description covers core purpose and rendering, but lacks context for a 6-parameter tool: no mention of icon source coupling (search_icons), coordinate system, or interaction with other canvas objects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing 'PNG' and 'color customization'. It does not explain coordinate system, default behavior for size/png_size, or validation rules for icon_name.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Insert', the resource 'OmniGraffle canvas', and the specific type of icon (IconPark) as an image rendered as PNG. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_node_with_icon, which likely creates a node shape rather than an image.

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 for inserting icons as images but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like create_node_with_icon or suggest_icons. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., document must be open) or exclusions is provided.

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