recraft_vectorize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently identifies the operation as a conversion and names accepted input formats, but it does not disclose side effects, file-size limits, or delivery details beyond what the schema already documents. This is adequate for a simple transformation but not rich behavioral context.

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 focused sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and interpret.

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 simple two-parameter conversion tool with no output schema, the description plus the fully documented input schema provide enough information to call it correctly. It does not explicitly explain return behavior, but the response_format enum covers the main delivery options, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 both parameters are already defined. The description adds value by specifying the accepted raster formats (PNG/JPG/WEBP) and the SVG output target, which helps an agent validate the file_path and understand the overall transformation beyond the schema's generic 'raster image' phrasing.

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 states a specific action ('Convert') with a clear resource ('raster image') and target result ('SVG vector format'), and lists accepted input types. This makes it easy to distinguish from generation and editing siblings like recraft_generate_image or recraft_image_to_image.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should use this when a user wants a raster PNG/JPG/WEBP converted to SVG. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative among the many recraft_* siblings, so routing relies on inference.

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