convert_text_to_shape

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 states the tool performs a conversion but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether the operation is destructive (implied by 'convert' but not explicit), if it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, or the output format. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('convert text layer to shape layer') and includes a clarifying detail ('create outlines') without redundancy. Every word 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a tool with clear purpose and fully documented parameters. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., mutation effects, error handling) and output expectations, which are important for a conversion tool in a creative workflow context.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (compId, layerIndex, keepOriginal) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameters, such as how layerIndex is determined or implications of keepOriginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('convert text layer to shape layer') and specifies the outcome ('create outlines'), which distinguishes it from generic text or shape tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'convert_mask_to_shape' or 'create_shape_from_path', which have similar conversion purposes but different source materials.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing text layer), compare to other text or shape tools in the sibling list, or specify scenarios where conversion is appropriate (e.g., for vector editing vs. text editing).

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