illustrator_preflight_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond them: the specific issue classes checked, the guarantee that the document is not modified, and return semantics (ok=true when clean, warnings otherwise). The CONTRACT line merely restates the annotations, but the NOTES add real value.

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 and front-loaded: purpose first, then contract, when-to-use, concepts, and notes. The CONTRACT line is redundant with the annotations and could be dropped, which is the only real waste in an otherwise tight layout.

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 read-only validation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema handling return values, the description supplies the needed context (what is checked, when to run it, and how results signal problems). The one gap is the inaccurate parameter guidance, which is minor against the rest of the coverage.

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?

With schema description coverage reported at 0% for the parameter, the description carries the burden, yet its only parameter detail is misleading: it describes a 'bounds policy' with values 'warn'/'error', which matches no parameter in the schema and conflicts with the actual 'policy' parameter whose values are 'fully-contained'/'intersects'. This actively risks misconfiguring the call rather than clarifying it.

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 and resource ('observational validation on the active document') and enumerates the exact checks performed (bounds, zero-size, empty text, locked items), which makes the intent unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like illustrator_query_items or illustrator_get_document, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives two concrete scenarios (before export; after a series of modifications), which is clear context. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to an alternative tool, so it does not reach the explicit-alternatives bar of a 5.

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