Icon Composer MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure but fails to clarify critical behavioral traits: whether changes are persistent, if they overwrite existing values, what happens on invalid indices, or any side effects on other layers.

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. The first sentence front-loads the core capability with specific technical details (.icon bundle, layer/group), while the second provides immediate usage context.

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 read-only tools but insufficient for this mutation operation. With 100% schema coverage, parameter documentation is complete, but the description omits mutation implications (persistence, reversibility) and conditional parameter requirements (layer_index dependency) that would aid safe invocation.

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% coverage establishing baseline 3. The description adds conceptual value by grouping scale/offset parameters into the holistic concepts of 'zoom' and 'reposition', making the relationship between offset_x/offset_y and scale clearer than the isolated schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the specific action (set scale and offset) and target resource (layer or group within .icon bundle). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like set_fill or set_appearances by specifying geometric transformations (zoom/reposition), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage context ('Use to zoom the glyph in/out or reposition it') but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., bundle must exist), or when-not-to-use conditions compared to sibling tools.

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