adobe_add_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive character is known from structured data. The description adds genuinely new context — the geometry is retained and editable in the document, and coordinates are px/pt measured from top left — but it does not mention what the operation mutates or requires (session_id, application, grouping), so added value is modest.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core operation front-loaded and zero filler; the semicolon cleanly appends the coordinate convention rather than padding it.

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 destructive 8-parameter geometry mutation with an output schema, the description covers only the operation name and coordinate convention. Point structure, fill behavior, closing, grouping, and application/session targeting are left entirely to an undocumented schema, so an agent cannot reliably construct a valid call from the definition alone.

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 0% schema description coverage across 8 parameters, the description must carry the burden and it largely does not: it explains only the coordinate units and origin. There is no explanation of the BezierPoint structure (anchor/left/right handles), rgb fill, closed, group_path, or expected_group_name, leaving most parameters semantically 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create retained editable Bézier geometry, optionally filled.' That clearly separates it from shape/rectangle or text insertion siblings, though it never names an alternative like adobe_add_rectangle, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'editable Bézier geometry' hints at when to use this over simpler primitives, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling is named as the alternative for simpler shapes.

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