Create Gradient

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false marking a write, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar, and the description adds genuinely useful runtime context: it runs in background mode without activating Illustrator. It still omits mutation-specific behavior such as duplicate-name handling (relevant given idempotentHint=false) and whether applying overwrites existing fills.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded. The execution-mode clause is a little tangential but compact and non-redundant.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and execution but says nothing about the return value or where the created gradient lands (swatch library vs document), leaving the agent to infer the outcome.

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 80%, so the schema does the heavy lifting on name, type, angle, stops and apply_to_uuids. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., stop ordering or how apply_to_uuids interacts with the created gradient), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a gradient in the document') plus its optional secondary effect ('apply it to objects'). No sibling tool creates gradients, so it is trivially distinguishable from the rectangle/ellipse/path creation tools.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and names no alternative (e.g., manage_swatches for existing gradients). An agent gets the operation but no routing context.

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