illustrator_path_import_svg

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: server-side parsing, arc-to-cubic conversion, safety limits (50,000 chars, 5,000 segments, etc.), and return format (bounds in Y-up space). This is rich context. Missing: what happens if limits are exceeded, or whether partial imports are possible.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: CONTRACT, WHEN TO USE, EXAMPLES, NOTES. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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?

Given complexity (SVG parsing, conversion, safety limits, output bounds), the description covers key behavioral aspects and provides examples. Output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. Missing: parameter semantics for tag, name, layer; and the fill parameter in the example is not in the schema (minor). Overall quite complete for the core use case.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example showing the d parameter format and mentions the fill parameter (though fill is not in the schema – possible inconsistency). The description does not explain the tag, name, or layer parameters at all, leaving them fully to the schema (which also lacks descriptions). However, the example demonstrates the core d parameter syntax well.

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 (import) and resource (SVG path d attribute) with a clear scope (into the active document). It distinguishes from siblings by naming illustrator_execute_task + element_create as the preferred alternative for new shapes. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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?

Provides explicit WHEN TO USE criteria (importing existing SVG path data, complex outlines/arcs) and points to an alternative for new shapes. The guidance is specific and actionable, leaving no ambiguity about when to select this tool versus alternatives.

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