validate_illustrator_svg

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context—what the validator checks and requires—but does not disclose what a rejection looks like or what output the tool returns, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs the key requirements compactly. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool's purpose and input constraints are adequately covered, but return behavior is not described and the mode parameter is left unexplained. Since no output schema exists)Skip; the description should at least say what a rejection result contains. Sibling differentiation is also only implicit.

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 coverage is 50%: the svg parameter has a description, but mode only has an enum and default. The description adds meaning to svg by listing concrete compatibility constraints (SVG 1.1, base64 xlink:href, embedded fonts, no live filters), but it says nothing about mode's draft/final distinction or how mode affects validation.

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 and resource: 'Reject browser-only SVG features' for Adobe Illustrator compatibility. It clearly distinguishes this tool from generic siblings like validate_svg_artifact by naming the Illustrator-specific risk (missing-link or plug-in warnings) and the exact compatibility requirements.

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 use case is implied: use this when validating SVGs for Adobe Illustrator compatibility. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling validation tools, nor does it mention when not to use it. The requirement list gives context but no direct routing guidance.

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