design_add_path

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does add genuinely useful technical detail beyond the schema by enumerating supported SVG commands (M, L, C, Q, Z), but says nothing about layer stacking/insertion order, that all input is consumer-only relative to existing layers, or what happens with malformed path data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key capability and the format constraint appear immediately.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is far too thin. Half the parameters are undocumented, layer placement behavior is unexplained, and there is no indication of what identifier or result the caller gets back.

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 only 50%: x, y, width, height, and layerName have no descriptions anywhere. The description does not clarify whether x/y/width/height are a bounding box applied to the path or a positioning frame, nor how they interact with scaleToFit — a significant gap for a 10-parameter tool.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ("Add a custom path shape layer") and constrains the input to SVG path data with the supported command set. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never contrasts itself with near-siblings like design_add_shape, design_add_line, or design_trace_shapes.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over design_add_shape/design_set_polygon or when a traced path would be preferable. The only guidance is implicit in the word "custom", leaving routing between overlapping shape-creation tools to inference.

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