Icon Composer MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It mentions group creation but lacks details on destructive effects, error handling, or side effects.

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, front-loaded, no unnecessary words. Each sentence adds value: first states purpose, second clarifies behavior.

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 given high schema coverage, but lacks return value description and error context for a mutation tool with 11 parameters.

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, so baseline is 3. Description adds slight context about group behavior but does not significantly enhance 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?

Description clearly states action (add layer) and resource (.icon bundle), and distinguishes from siblings like create_icon and remove_layer by specifying it operates on an existing bundle.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_icon for new bundles). Does not mention prerequisites like bundle must exist.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It only describes output and basic inputs, missing details on side effects (e.g., file overwriting), error conditions, or permissions needed for a tool that writes to disk.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. 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?

Given the complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It lacks details on output format, usage patterns, or potential issues, making it insufficient for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions two required parameters, while the schema already documents all 13.

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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and resource '.icon bundle', clearly stating inputs (foreground image and background color) and output (ready-to-use for Xcode 26). It distinguishes from sibling tools that modify existing icons.

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 implies usage (when you need to create a .icon bundle) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like add_layer_to_icon or export_preview, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors (no effects, no alpha, opaque, default size) but omits details about the return_image parameter behavior and output_path expectations. The description is adequate but not fully transparent about all parameter-driven behaviors.

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, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and constraints but does not explain the return_image parameter or output_path format. It is sufficient for a straightforward export tool but could be more complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning beyond the schema (mentions default 1024x1024 size, which is already in schema). It does not elaborate on return_image or output_path beyond what the schema provides.

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 it exports a flat marketing PNG for App Store Connect, specifying no Liquid Glass effects, no alpha channel, and default 1024x1024 size. It distinguishes from siblings like render_liquid_glass and export_preview by focusing on the flat, opaque export use case.

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 explicitly says 'No Liquid Glass effects, no alpha channel', which tells the agent not to use this tool when effects are needed. It implies the tool is for final marketing export, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like export_preview. Still provides good contextual guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: default ictool usage, fallback to flat composite, and support for canvas backgrounds and zoom. It does not cover auth or destructive aspects, but as a preview tool, these are less critical.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by key technical details. Ideal conciseness for an AI agent.

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?

Despite 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential behavior, fallback, and output options. It could include more on typical use cases or parameter interactions, but overall adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context on default rendering and fallback but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool renders a preview of .icon bundles, specifying the default rendering tool (ictool) and fallback. It distinguishes from sibling tools like export_marketing and render_liquid_glass by focusing on preview output.

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 explains default behavior and fallback, and mentions support for backgrounds and zoom. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like render_liquid_glass or export_marketing, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose each.

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

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

The description mentions the tool reads and returns data but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive. Given no annotations, the description should carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or safety.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output, with no unnecessary information.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains functionality and return value. It could be slightly improved by noting the read-only nature, but is largely complete.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with description for 'bundle_path'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline score.

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 tool reads and inspects an existing .icon bundle, specifying the return of manifest JSON and assets list. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like 'create_icon' or 'add_layer_to_icon'.

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 implies usage for reading icon bundles but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'export_marketing' or 'export_preview'. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool references are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions the optional cleanup of orphaned assets but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., irreversible removal, required permissions, impact on bundle integrity). For a destructive operation, more transparency is needed.

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 a single sentence that concisely states the primary action and the optional feature. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, error conditions, or constraints (e.g., whether the bundle must exist). For a removal tool with 5 parameters, more contextual information is required.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates the optional cleanup but does not provide additional context for parameters like group_index or layer_index.

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 specifies the verb 'Remove', the resource '.icon bundle', and distinguishes between removing a single layer or an entire group. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_layer_to_icon or create_icon.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or contraindications. For example, it doesn't indicate if there are dependencies between layers or groups that might affect usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool uses ictool and requires Icon Composer, but omits details on error handling, performance implications, or what happens if prerequisites are missing.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key prerequisite. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given 16 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function and prerequisite but lacks guidance on parameter interactions (e.g., tint vs renditions) or default behaviors.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it renders a Liquid Glass preview using Apple's ictool, matching iOS 26 rendering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_icon or export_preview by specifying the exact rendering engine and output quality.

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 mentions a prerequisite (Icon Composer.app) and implies use for exact iOS 26 previews, but does not explicitly declare when to use alternatives like export_preview or set_glass_effects.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the basic action but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether overrides replace or merge, side effects on properties not specified, permissions needed, or any destructive potential. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single, concise sentence (20 words) that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient but could be slightly improved by explicitly naming the three targets (fill, group, layer) to match the schema's enums.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (19 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error states, or how parameters interact with the 'target' parameter. The agent would need extensive inference to use this tool correctly.

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 each parameter is already documented. The tool description does not add any further insights into parameter relationships or usage patterns (e.g., which parameters apply to which target). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('set') and resource ('appearance overrides') for specific targets (fill, group, layer). It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_fill' which deals with standard fill rather than appearance overrides. However, it could be more explicit about what 'appearance overrides' entails.

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 implies usage for setting dark/tinted mode appearances on various targets, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., 'set_fill', 'toggle_fx'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates mutation ('Set') but does not mention side effects, permissions, or data persistence. The brief description offers minimal behavioral transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no extraneous information. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage or behavioral context without losing conciseness.

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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It fails to explain return values, constraints, or what happens after setting fill, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema parameter descriptions (e.g., doesn't explain 'automatic' or 'none' fill types). It remains generic.

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 action ('Set the background fill'), the target resource ('.icon bundle'), and the value it supports ('solid colors and gradients'), making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like add_layer_to_icon or set_appearances.

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 implies usage for setting background fill with solid or gradient colors, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_appearances) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies mutation ('Configure') but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. It lists the affected effects, which is somewhat helpful, but lacks depth on behavioral traits. Adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently conveys the tool's function. 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?

Given 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but lacks completeness. It does not mention what happens after configuration (e.g., success indicator, error conditions, or persistence). The schema descriptions cover parameters, but the overall context of usage (e.g., need to create a bundle first, or that effects are applied immediately) is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists some effect types (specular, blur, shadow, translucency) that map to parameters, but these are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as relationships between parameters or default behavior.

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 action ('Configure'), the resource ('Liquid Glass effects on a layer group'), and the scope ('in an existing .icon bundle'). It is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes from siblings like 'render_liquid_glass' which likely performs rendering rather than configuration.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools. For example, it does not indicate whether 'render_liquid_glass' should be used afterward or if this tool supersedes other effect settings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool sets values, but does not describe side effects (e.g., overwriting vs merging), required permissions, error conditions, or return value. For a mutation tool with no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences, no fluff. First sentence defines the action and scope; second sentence suggests usage. Information is front-loaded and every word adds value. Excessively concise without missing critical purpose.

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?

Given 7 parameters, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on preconditions (e.g., bundle_path must exist), validation (how group/layer indices are used), and return behavior. Schema covers parameter meanings, but overall behavioral completeness is moderate.

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 each parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that scale and offset are involved. It does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., what happens if target is 'group' but layer_index is provided). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'scale and offset of a layer or group', and specifies the scope 'within the .icon bundle'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_fill or set_glass_effects by focusing on position/zoom. The use case 'zoom the glyph in/out or reposition it' reinforces purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use to zoom the glyph in/out or reposition it', indicating when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tools cover other aspects (e.g., set_fill for color, set_appearances for styling), so usage context is implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description should carry behavioral disclosure. It says it affects all groups at once but does not mention potential side effects, performance implications, or reversibility. Lacks details like whether it overwrites or restores default settings.

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 sentence is concise and front-loaded. No redundant words, though could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing effects separately).

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?

Tool has only 2 simple parameters and no output schema. Description covers the action and parameter purpose adequately. Lacks mention of output or idempotency, but completeness is reasonable given simplicity.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond stating true enables, false disables, which matches the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it enables/disables all Liquid Glass effects on every group in the .icon bundle, using specific verbs (enable/disable) and resource (Liquid Glass effects on groups in bundle). It distinguishes from siblings like set_glass_effects which likely handles individual effects.

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 implies bulk toggling use case but does not explicitly guide when to use this versus siblings like set_glass_effects. No exclusions or when-not-to-use hints provided.

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