path_convert

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

With no annotations, this carries the full burden. It lists operations but never discloses side effects (file overwrites, in-place mutation, idempotency, destructive nature of fracture/break-apart), nor whether selection filters apply to all variants. The only safety hint, output_path overwrite behavior, is in the schema, not the description.

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?

Single compact sentence with a scannable list, and the 'Set with kind' instruction is appropriately terse. The long comma-separated list is readable though not structured with line breaks.

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?

This is a complex 6-parameter, multi-variant tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description fails to explain the role of value, the relationship among object_ids/select_all and operation kinds, and the input/output file flow. It provides the variant list but leaves operational semantics largely to schema field descriptions.

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. Description partially compensates by listing the variant names, but it does not specify exact kind string format (e.g., 'object-to-path' vs 'object_to_path') or which variants require the value parameter. Since there are no enums, ambiguous mapping reduces the added value.

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 clear verb ('Convert') and resource ('paths and shapes'), and enumerates a dozen specific operations, distinguishing it from siblings like path_boolean and path_geometry. The phrase 'Set with kind' signals the parameterized nature. Could be improved by explicitly naming the sibling it is not, but the operation list is specific enough.

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?

No guidance about when to choose this over path_boolean, path_geometry, object_transform, or object_compose. The description neither states exclusivity nor conditions such as 'for boolean ops use path_boolean.' Relies on the operation list alone to imply coverage.

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