Create Crop Marks (トンボ)

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description goes further by disclosing that the default path expands the artboard to include all marks (a side effect the annotations do not reveal) and that use_selection leaves the artboard untouched. It also adds runtime context ('runs without activating Illustrator in default background mode; never invokes Computer Use'), which materially affects how an agent should call 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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the artifact and its scope before the mode-dependent behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information (default vs selection behavior, style auto-detection, background execution).

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 4-param creation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, and execution mode adequately. It does not describe what the tool returns or any confirmation of created marks, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema to rely on.

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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description largely restates what the schema already says about use_selection and style, adding only the artboard-expansion consequence. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create crop marks (トンボ / trim marks)') and names the two scopes it operates on (active artboard or selected objects). No sibling tool does crop marks, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from the surrounding create_*/get_* set.

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?

Clearly contrasts default behavior ('creates marks for the artboard') against use_selection=true ('creates marks for the currently selected object(s) without modifying the artboard'), giving the agent a decision rule. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or an explicit when-not-to-use, so it is not a 5.

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