graphic_edit

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, read-write, and idempotent. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: overlays follow because they reference the graphic rather than its frames, and undo does not revert a graphic's page because it persists beside the manifest. These claims go beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with purpose and followed by two high-value caveats. Every sentence earns its place, and the manifest/PNG analogy communicates persistence behavior without padding.

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 a rich input schema, an output schema, and annotations that cover the safety profile, the description supplies the missing contextual pieces: propagation to overlays and undo limits. It does not address sibling selection, but that gap is accounted for in usage guidelines; for invocation context it is largely complete.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description's high-level phrases like "refill its slots" and "replace its page" loosely map to slots and html, but they add no syntax, default, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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, "Change an animated graphic," and enumerates concrete operations — refill slots, replace page, move phases, recapture. This distinguishes it from siblings like graphic_new (creation) and graphic_capture (capture alone). The phrase "move its phases" is slightly jargon-y, but the schema parameters clarify it.

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 tool's scope is clear, but the description never states when to choose it over graphic_capture, graphic_save/load, or graphic_new, nor when not to use it. The overlay and undo notes provide surrounding context but no explicit alternative routing. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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