svg_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a canvas mutation but says nothing about what happens when both 'key' and 'svg' are supplied, when neither is supplied (all 7 params are optional), or about layering/placement behavior.

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 the action and resource before the key enumeration. The key list is lengthy but earns its place by supplying values absent from the schema.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input dual-mode but omits mutual exclusivity rules, defaults behavior, and what adding actually does to the canvas. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by enumerating 11 valid built-in key values, compensating for the fact that the 'key' parameter has no enum in the schema. It still leaves the key/svg mutual exclusivity implicit.

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 and resource (adds an SVG vector graphic/sticker/badge to the canvas), which is clear. It partially overlaps with the sibling sticker_add by calling out 'sticker' as a target, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from that sibling, so it doesn't reach 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?

There is no guidance on when to use svg_add versus the closely related sticker_add, shape_add, image_add, or element_add_stock siblings. The reader can infer the SVG-specific context, but no conditions or alternatives are named.

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