offset_path

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the path is modified in place, whether the operation is destructive/reversible, what units or sign convention 'offset' uses, or what the agent should expect after calling it.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation, and the core action is stated immediately.

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 mutation-style design tool with no annotations and no output schema, one short clause is not enough context. The agent is not told about side effects, return value, failure conditions, or how the offset behaves visually. Sibling tools are numerous, so more context is needed to avoid misapplication.

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 100%, with 'Vector node' and 'Offset amount' already documenting both parameters. The description adds only a thin gloss by framing the operation as 'expand', but it does not clarify units, coordinate space, or whether the offset is applied to the path geometry itself.

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 names a specific action, 'Offset/expand', and a specific resource, 'a vector path', which is enough to identify the tool's core purpose. It is distinct from siblings like resize_node or set_corner_radius, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself or mention when this operation is appropriate.

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 about when to use this tool alongside alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. A one-line operation statement gives an agent no help deciding between offset_path, boolean_operation, resize_node, or other path-modification tools.

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