Formes vectorielles et SVG

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful behavior: it creates native shape layers and converts SVG into editable paths, not imported images. However, it does not disclose side effects, destructive behavior, or output/return behavior, which are significant given the mutation-oriented actions.

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?

Three sentences, each contributing distinct value: what the tool does, when the svg action is preferable, and where to find syntax details. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Given 29 parameters, three distinct actions, and no output schema or annotations, the description gives a useful overview but is not complete enough on its own. The pointer to ae_help helps, but the agent still needs to inspect the schema and related help to understand action-specific requirements and expected outcomes.

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 69%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by mapping actions to high-level behaviors and by pointing to ae_help topic='shapes' for the syntax of vector items, which is especially valuable for the under-documented 'contents' parameter.

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 names three concrete operations with specific resources: building native shape layers, modifying a Bezier path, and converting SVG into editable AE shapes. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ae_mask or ae_text and clarifies the role of the 'action' parameter.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use action=svg: as the right entry point for recreating a vector design, because it produces real paths rather than an imported image. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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