illustrator_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true, and idempotent=false, so the CONTRACT line largely restates structured data. However, the NOTES add genuinely new behavioral context: closing without save_before_close=True discards unsaved changes, and filesystem interaction is called out for open/save. That is real value beyond the annotations, though no auth or error/return behavior is described.

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?

Front-loaded summary followed by clearly labeled CONTRACT, WHEN TO USE, EXAMPLES, and NOTES sections — very scannable. Slight redundancy: the CONTRACT line duplicates the annotations verbatim, which costs a little space but adds little 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 four-action document lifecycle tool, the definition covers preconditions, destructive side effects, and worked examples for every action; an output schema is present so return values need not be explained. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Top-level schema description coverage is nominally 0%, but the nested DocumentInput properties carry their own descriptions (name/create, width/create, file_path/open+save, save_before_close/close). The description reinforces this by tying parameters to actions in the examples (width/height/color_mode for create, file_path for open/save, save_before_close for close), so an agent knows which params apply to which action without opening the schema.

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 names a specific verb family (create/open/save/close) and the exact resource (Illustrator document), and enumerates each action so the agent can distinguish this from siblings like illustrator_export_document or illustrator_get_document. The one-line summary plus the per-action WHEN TO USE block makes the tool's identity unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use each action, including the precondition that file_path is required for 'open' and is only optional (save-as) for 'save', and flags the close-without-save behavior. Alternatives are implicit but the action-level routing is explicit and complete.

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