Convert to Outlines

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

The description adds execution-mode context ("runs without activating Illustrator in default background mode; never invokes Computer Use") that annotations do not cover. But for a tool annotated destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, it never says what is destroyed: the text loses editability and the conversion is not reversible. That is the most important behavioral fact and it is left to inference.

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?

Two short sentences, core action front-loaded, and the runtime caveat second. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and stays silent on it. For a destructive, non-idempotent operation on a single required target, it should at least note irreversibility or the undo path (a sibling `undo` exists).

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 the single target parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the "selection"/"all"/layer-name semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Convert text to outlines"), which is unambiguous and matches the title. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many other text-related siblings (list_text_frames, apply_text_style, create_path_text) or explain what "outlines" means operationally (text becomes vector paths).

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when this is preferable to run_script or other text manipulation tools. The two sentences address execution mechanics, not selection criteria.

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