optimize_svg

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is removed (metadata, comments, unnecessary attributes) and the goal (reduce file size), which is useful behavioral context for a transformation tool. However, it omits that output structure may change (e.g., removeViewBox/removeDimensions can alter rendering), that this is a non-destructive transform returning modified content, and any auth or rate constraints.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It efficiently conveys the engine and the categories of content removed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should ideally indicate what is returned (optimized SVG string), and the 16 nested option flags carry defaults whose behavior is not summarized. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for a tool with this much internal configuration.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents svgContent and the options object. The description adds no detail about the nested options (cleanupIDs, removeViewBox, etc.) beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Clean and optimize SVG content') and names the underlying engine, SVGO. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like convert_icon or create_sprite, which handle icons in other ways, though it doesn't explicitly frame itself against those siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that this is the tool for shrinking raw SVG markup.

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