Icon Composer MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Configure' implies mutation but lacks disclosure on reversibility, partial update behavior (only bundle_path is required), error handling for invalid group_index, or whether changes are persistent/in-memory.

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, dense sentence (13 words) with zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb, parenthetical specifics earn their place by enumerating effect types, and scope qualifiers ('layer group', 'existing') precisely constrain applicability.

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 an 11-parameter configuration tool with good schema coverage. Captures domain-specific context (Liquid Glass, .icon bundle). Missing: partial update pattern (optional params), validation behavior, or distinction from rendering operations. Minimum viable given schema richness.

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 has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. Description adds conceptual grouping by listing effect categories (specular, blur, shadow, translucency) but doesn't add syntax, validation constraints, or parameter interdependencies beyond schema.

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?

Clear verb ('Configure') + specific resource ('Liquid Glass effects') + scope ('layer group in existing .icon bundle'). Distinguishes from create_icon by requiring 'existing' bundle and implies group-level vs layer-level operations compared to set_fill. However, it doesn't clarify relationship with sibling render_liquid_glass.

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?

Provides implied guidance by specifying 'existing .icon bundle' (suggesting use after create_icon) and 'layer group' (suggesting group vs layer scope). Lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives for glass rendering vs configuration.

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