Convert Coordinate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the 'active document' scoping context; it says nothing about out-of-bounds points, whether units matter, or precision/rounding behavior.

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?

One sentence, no filler, scoping detail front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple, annotation-covered pure function the description is nearly adequate, but with no output schema it never states what is returned (a converted {x, y} point, and in which units/frame). Nested point object handling is also left entirely to the schema.

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% and both enum parameters are self-documented ('Source coordinate system', 'Destination coordinate system'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's only parameter-relevant signal is that 'from'/'to' must be the two named systems, which the enum already conveys.

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?

Specific verb (convert) plus a precise resource (a point between artboard and document coordinate systems) and scope (the active document). No sibling tool performs coordinate translation, and the description makes the transformation direction explicit via 'between ... and ...'.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for translating coordinates when crossing the artboard/document boundary, and 'in the active document' hints at a precondition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use trigger, no statement that this is the only supported conversion path, and no note about needing an open document with artboards.

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