Manage Swatches

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: it runs without activating Illustrator in background mode and never invokes Computer Use, which is useful execution-model disclosure. It stops short of stating permissions or what deletion does to in-use swatches.

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 operation set front-loaded and the execution-model note following. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy, though it is borderline terse for a mutation tool.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the actions and the execution model adequately. Remaining gaps (permissions, effect on in-use swatches, response shape) are minor against the destructiveHint annotation and complete schema.

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 all three parameters and the color union are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 set (add/update/delete) and resource (swatches in the active document), which an agent can map directly to the action enum. It does not, however, differentiate itself from related siblings like replace_color or get_colors, so ambiguity remains about when swatch manipulation is the right 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?

The description enumerates the operations available but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing add vs update vs delete, and no pointer to alternatives such as replace_color for restyling existing artwork. Usage is implied only through the action enum.

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