create_vector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the tool creates a node but does not disclose what is returned (e.g. the new node id), where the node lands when parentNodeId is omitted, whether the operation is undoable, or any permission requirements. For a creation/mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the parameter hints follow. Efficient, though the parameter list reads as a compressed inventory rather than explanatory prose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema-level parameter descriptions for an 8-parameter mutation tool, the description is too thin. It omits return behavior, default placement behavior, and parameter semantics that an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 names most parameters (vectorPaths, fills, strokes, strokeWeight, parentNodeId, x, y) and shows the vectorPaths item shape, but adds no meaning beyond names and structure — no units, formats, defaults, or relationships between fills/strokes and strokeWeight.

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 — create a VECTOR node from SVG path data — which is concrete enough to distinguish it from neighbors like set_vector_paths or create_rectangle. It does not explicitly name a sibling or clarify how it differs from set_vector_paths, 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative set_vector_paths for editing existing vectors. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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