validate_svg_artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating validation. The description adds context about what is validated (fonts, palette, dimensions, raster compatibility, logo usage) but doesn't disclose return format, error behavior, or how strict the validation is. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose (validate a generated SVG artifact) and then lists the validation dimensions. It's efficient and every phrase earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter mapping.

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 validation tool with readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description covers the main validation areas. It doesn't explain return values, but there's no output schema and validation tools typically return pass/fail details. The main gap is not explaining the mode parameter (draft vs final) and how it affects validation strictness, which an agent would need to know for correct invocation.

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 40%, so the schema documents svg and assetBasePath but not mode, assetType, or requiresLogo. The description mentions social dimensions and official logo usage, which maps to assetType and requiresLogo, but doesn't explain the mode parameter or how assetBasePath is used beyond 'verify official logo references'. The description adds some meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the 60% coverage gap.

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 clearly states the tool validates a generated SVG artifact against SAMPLE brand rules and the Illustrator-safe SVG 1.1 export contract, listing specific validation dimensions (fonts, palette, dimensions, raster compatibility, logo usage). This distinguishes it from siblings like validate_illustrator_svg and validate_design_spec by naming the SAMPLE brand rules and export contract.

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 implies when to use this tool: after generating an SVG artifact, to check it against brand rules and the Illustrator-safe export contract. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specific validation scope (SAMPLE brand rules, Illustrator-safe SVG 1.1) gives clear context. Sibling names like validate_illustrator_svg and validate_design_spec exist, but the description doesn't explicitly route between them.

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