path_finish

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 mentions 'completes and adds' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a destructive operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, or the format of the result. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies or creates SVG content.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 complexity of a tool that likely creates or modifies SVG paths, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the result (e.g., what 'adds as an SVG element' means in practice), error conditions, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 100%, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., fill color, stroke width). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool 'completes the path builder and adds it as an SVG element,' which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'completing' entails compared to siblings like 'path_close' or 'path_cancel,' and it doesn't specify the exact outcome (e.g., whether it creates a new path or modifies an existing one).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active path builder), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'path_close' or 'path_create,' leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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