illustrator_path_boolean

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare destructive=true and idempotent=false), the description discloses that originals are deleted on success only when delete_originals=True, that only fill geometry is processed while strokes are ignored with a warning, and that output type varies (PathItem vs CompoundPathItem). It also exposes the internal pipeline stages, so the agent knows the operation is a multi-stage ExtendScript/Python round-trip rather than an atomic edit.

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 with the purpose, then cleanly sectioned into CONTRACT, WHEN TO USE, PIPELINE, EXAMPLES and NOTES, which makes scanning fast. The five-step pipeline is the most verbose element and is more implementation detail than an agent strictly needs, but nothing is filler.

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 destructive, multi-step geometry tool this covers the essentials: mutation semantics, the originals-deletion behavior, geometry limitations (strokes ignored), the MCP ID convention (@mcp:id in item.note), and result shape. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still usefully explains when each result type is produced.

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?

The reported schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is expected to compensate, and it does so only partially: it clarifies the kept-vs-cutting roles of subject and clip via examples, and the destructive consequence of delete_originals. It says nothing about name, layer, style, max_segments, or flatten_tolerance, leaving half the parameters to be inferred from titles alone.

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+resource ('Perform boolean operations ... on paths') and enumerates the four operations, which strongly differentiates it from every sibling (script execution, querying, SVG import, export). An agent can identify this tool's role without opening the 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?

A dedicated WHEN TO USE block maps each operation to a concrete scenario ('Combining shapes (unite), cutting holes (subtract), finding overlaps (intersect)') and adds the general case 'any shape sculpting that needs boolean geometry'. It lacks explicit negative guidance or a named alternative sibling to prefer in other cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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