design_trace_splines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says it 'produces' curves and mentions presets, but never states whether the result is written to a new layer, replaces existing content, is destructive, or returns data. Only the schema parameter createLayer hints at this side effect.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, and the preset/quality-control note as supporting detail. No filler, though the third sentence is close to restating the schema.

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 ten-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits the input prerequisite (needing existing traced contour data), the output or layer side effects, and any behavioral constraints, leaving an agent to guess how the tool changes the document.

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 all ten parameters, including defaults and the preset enum. The description restates the preset names and generically refers to 'vectorization quality controls' without adding meaning beyond the schema; 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 states a specific verb and resource: fitting cubic Bezier splines to traced contours, producing vector curves from edge data. That is clear and concrete. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as design_trace_contours or design_trace_edges, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'from edge data' suggests it runs after an edge/contour trace, and 'vector-quality curves' hints at the vectorization context. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many design_trace_* siblings.

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