Live: insert SVG

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

Discloses behavior beyond annotations: svg_fragment is safely parsed (no entities, no external DTD, no network) and size-bounded. Clearly states 'high risk' and requirement for approval_token. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false consistent with write operation).

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?

Concise and well-structured: brief action statement, usage guidance, key params, risk info, return shape, and example. 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 the tool's complexity (live insertion, high risk), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, risk, return output (LiveEditResult with before/after renders), and an example. The output schema is referenced, providing complete context for invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates partially. It mentions key params (svg_fragment and approval_token) and adds safety context for svg_fragment. However, it does not fully describe each parameter's type or constraints beyond what schema provides. With only 2 params, the context is adequate but could be more precise.

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 clearly states 'Insert an SVG fragment into the running document.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by noting alternatives for styling (live_apply_to_selection) and headless equivalent (insert_svg_fragment).

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?

Explicitly says 'When to use: grafting composed markup into the live document.' Provides alternative tools for different use cases. Also states prerequisites: 'REQUIRES an explicit approval_token' and notes high risk, guiding appropriate usage.

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