Icon Composer MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions file deletion via 'cleans up orphaned asset files' but omits critical behavioral details: permanent deletion risks, index shifting after removal, or error conditions for invalid indices.

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 with zero waste. Primary action front-loaded in first sentence; optional secondary behavior in second. Every word earns its place.

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?

Adequate for parameter understanding given complete schema coverage, but insufficient behavioral disclosure for a destructive file operation lacking annotations or output schema. Missing guidance on transaction safety or undoability.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds domain context confirming this operates on '.icon bundle' files and contextualizes cleanup_assets as handling 'orphaned' files, slightly enriching the raw schema definitions.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Remove' with clear resources ('layer or entire group from an .icon bundle'). Effectively distinguishes from siblings like add_layer_to_icon or set_fill by specifying deletion scope.

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?

Implies usage through 'Optionally cleans up orphaned asset files' but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., bundle must exist), or differentiation from read_icon for inspection.

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