Manage Artboards

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context ('runs without activating Illustrator in default background mode; never invokes Computer Use'), but it never says which sub-action is destructive, that removal is irreversible, or how a failed run is recovered. Useful but partial, so a 3.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation list, no filler or repetition of the title. The second sentence is slightly tangential but carries real execution-mode information, so it earns its place; structure is efficient overall.

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?

This is a 6-action tool with 7 parameters, a nested rect object, and no output schema, so the description carries a lot of coordination burden. The action enum and schema fields cover most per-action needs, but the description gives no mapping of which parameters belong to which action, no statement of what each action returns, and no routing to get_artboards for inspection. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 already documents every parameter, including the per-action conditional requirement on index and the constraints on rows_or_cols. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Add, remove, resize, rename, fit, or rearrange') applied to a concrete resource ('artboards'), and the enumerated operations match the action enum. This clearly separates it from the sibling read-only get_artboards. It stops short of naming that sibling or otherwise explicitly disambiguating, keeping it at a 4.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_artboards or create_document, and no stated prerequisites. The condition that index is required for four of the six actions exists only in the schema, not in the description, so an agent gets no usage framing here.

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