batch_recolor

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to mention whether the operation is destructive, undoable, or if it respects selection boundaries. The phrase 'or selection' is ambiguous—does it mean the tool operates on the active selection or the entire frame if no selection? No specifics about color matching (exact or tolerance) or performance impact are given.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently conveys the main purpose without extraneous words, striking a good balance between brevity and informativeness.

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?

The description lacks important context: it does not specify that the operation affects only the current frame unless frameIndex is provided, nor does it clarify how 'selection' is interpreted (e.g., if no selection exists, does it default to entire frame?). With no output schema, the description should note the outcome (e.g., count of replaced pixels) but does not.

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?

The input schema already describes all 4 parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., hex format, enum values). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for parameter coverage without adding extra value.

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 ('Replace one color with another') and the scope ('across the entire frame or selection'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'fill_region' or 'select_by_color' by focusing on color replacement.

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 over alternatives (e.g., set_foreground_color, set_background_color, batch_replace_char). It lacks context on prerequisites, selection handling, or when not to use it.

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