graphic_load

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool copies from the library and captures at the canvas, which is useful context, but it does not disclose side effects like default refusal on name collision (only in the replace parameter) or the capture/rate behavior. It adds some value beyond annotations but not a rich behavioral picture.

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 the main verb and resource front-loaded. Every word contributes: it states the action, source, destination, and the additional capture effect. There is no filler or repetition.

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 the rich input schema (100% coverage, detailed path and replace semantics), annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), and an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could mention the dependency on graphic_library for the saved parameter, but that hint lives in the schema, so the overall context is nearly 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%, and each parameter already has a detailed description (path semantics, defaults, replace behavior). The tool description mentions 'library graphic' for saved and 'capture' for capture, but these are largely redundant with the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses specific verbs ('Copy', 'capture') and names both source ('this machine's library') and destination ('the project's canvas'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like graphic_library (listing), graphic_new (creating), and graphic_capture (capturing an existing graphic), so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 a workflow by mentioning 'library' and 'project', and the saved parameter references graphic_library for listing, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It leaves the choice to inference from the surrounding schema and sibling names.

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