illustrator_history

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false), the description adds genuinely useful traits: checkpoints only capture MCP-managed items carrying @mcp:id, and checkpoint_restore is mutate-in-place, potentially needing multiple undos to revert. The CONTRACT line merely restates the annotations verbatim, so it earns no additional credit, but the NOTES section does add real behavioral context.

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 core sentence followed by clearly labeled CONTRACT/WHEN TO USE/EXAMPLES/NOTES sections; examples are compact and directly runnable. The CONTRACT line duplicates the annotations word-for-word, which is the one line that does not earn 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers every action in the enum, the constraint on what checkpoints capture, the reversibility caveat for restore, and the destructive nature of undo/redo. An agent has everything needed to select the right action and call it 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?

Top-level schema coverage reads 0% because params is a bare $ref, so the description has to carry semantic weight — and it does, via worked examples that demonstrate count for undo, and name for checkpoint_save/restore. It conveys which arguments matter for which action more concretely than the enum list alone, though the nested $defs already document name/count/action individually.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Undo or redo actions in Illustrator") and then extends it to the named checkpoint operations, which no sibling tool covers. An agent can distinguish it from illustrator_document, illustrator_query_items, or illustrator_execute_script without opening any schema.

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 WHEN TO USE block gives three concrete scenarios mapped to specific action values (undo/redo for mistakes, checkpoint_save/restore for recovery), and the EXAMPLES section shows the exact call shape for each. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives (e.g. when to prefer document-level repair or execute_script over a checkpoint restore), so it is clear context without routing rules.

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