path_effect

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, but it does not disclose side effects, file overwriting behavior, object creation, or the result/return behavior of applying a path effect. The only behavioral signal is the terse 'operation: list | apply,' which is too thin for a mutation-capable tool with no structured safety hints.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the key distinguishing information: the eight supported effects. The grammar is telegraphic and the final 'operation: list | apply' line could be more integrated, but every sentence earns its place without filler.

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 tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is not complete enough to invoke correctly. It omits how input_path, output_path, and object_id relate, what list returns, whether apply mutates in place or creates a new object, and how params should be structured for each effect.

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, but the description adds real value by enumerating the allowed effect values and operation values (list | apply) that the open-ended schema fields do not provide. It also indicates that params and defaults come from Inkscape's lpe-*.cpp source, helping an agent understand where parameter semantics originate.

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 resource—live path effects—and enumerates the exact supported set (sketch, rough_hatches, spiro, etc.), while exposing the two operations list and apply. It partially differentiates from siblings by claiming these effects have no other headless route, though it does not state in full-sentence form what the tool does to an SVG object or file.

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 'no other headless route' provides clear context that this tool exists specifically for these eight effects, which helps an agent choose it over object_transform or path_boolean. However, it gives no guidance on when to use list versus apply, nor how operation choices interact with object_id, input_path, and output_path.

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