add_svg

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose several important traits: output is editable vector (not raster), bare elements use canvas pixel coordinates, and external references are restricted to #ids and data: URIs. It omits what happens to pre-existing content on the target layer, what the call returns (shape ids? layer name?), and error behavior, which are material for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and the element list, then the coordinate rule, then layer targeting, then constraints. No filler; the element enumeration is dense but earns its space as a validity constraint.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation mutation tool, the description covers input content rules and layer targeting well but leaves the return value and post-call state unaddressed. An agent could invoke it correctly but could not predict the result or verify success from the definition alone.

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 the description has to compensate and largely does: `svg` is defined by allowed element set, coordinate convention, and reference restrictions; `layer` is constrained to a vectorlayer; `name` is explained as the name for a newly created vector layer. The `name`/`layer` interaction is clarified, though the precedence when both are supplied is only implied by the ordering.

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 ("Add") and resource (SVG elements as editable vector shapes), and enumerates the supported element types, which lets an agent distinguish this from raster drawing tools like draw_shapes. It stops short of naming the closest sibling (e.g. draw_shapes or import_image) explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 layer-resolution rule (explicit `layer`, else active vector layer, else new layer named `name`) is a concrete usage rule that guides invocation. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over draw_shapes or import_image, and no exclusions or failure conditions.

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