design_convert_text_to_paths

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the critical non-destructive trait: 'Returns the path data without modifying the layer.' It doesn't state what happens if the layer isn't a text layer or how the resulting path data is surfaced, which keeps it below a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the non-destructiveness statement following 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the reason, and that it returns path data without mutating the layer. Minor gaps remain around the exact return shape and failure conditions for non-text layers.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains layerId. The description adds the useful qualifier that the layer must be a text layer, but provides no format or lookup detail beyond that, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Convert a text layer to SVG path data') and gives the rationale ('font-independent rendering'), which distinguishes it from siblings like design_set_text or design_apply_text_style that manipulate text without vectorizing it.

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 phrase 'for font-independent rendering' tells an agent the situation that motivates the call, which is clear context. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to use design_export_plant_paths-style path export or to leave text editable), so it doesn't reach a 5.

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