Create Path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, telling the agent this is a non-destructive write. The description adds a genuine non-annotation detail (background mode, no Computer Use), but omits mutation specifics such as which document/layer is affected and whether the action is undoable.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is somewhat tangential (execution environment) but short and plausibly useful to an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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?

With 7 parameters, nested anchor objects, and no output schema, an agent has enough from the schema to construct the call. However the description does not say what is returned, whether the path is created on the active document or layer, or how it interacts with layer_name, leaving moderate gaps for a creation tool.

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%, with anchors, fill, stroke, coordinate_system and layer_name all documented in the schema, including the enum's auto-detection logic. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, so the 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 ('Create a custom path'), which clearly reads as freeform anchor-based drawing. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling creation tools (create_rectangle, create_ellipse, create_line, create_path_text), so an agent must infer that 'custom path' means arbitrary anchors rather than a primitive.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as create_line, create_rectangle, or import_svg_as_editable for arbitrary geometry. The only extra sentence is about execution mode, not about tool selection or prerequisites.

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