gen_record_texture_paint_pass

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 discloses a meaningful trait: 'no-spend' (no credit cost) and that it records for evidence/iteration. However, it doesn't disclose side effects — what state it writes, whether it modifies the session, or its irreversibility. For a recording tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context would help, but the no-spend disclosure is a genuine value-add.

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 elements — a one-sentence purpose, a KB pointer, and a usage example — with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded. The example is compact and illustrative. Minor waste is none; it's efficient for what it covers, though it could trade some example space for parameter clarification.

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 14-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and provides an example but leaves 10 parameters semantically undefined and doesn't clarify the relationship to sibling evidence/snapshot tools. The output schema covers return values, but parameter semantics and workflow context are substantial gaps an agent must resolve via the KB.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 14 parameters. The example demonstrates 4 of them (session_name, pass_label, affected_regions, approval_note) with plausible values, giving weak semantic hints. The remaining 10 (blend_mode, blend_amount, brush_radius, brush_strength, model_task_id, texture_task_id, texture_asset_path, result_snapshot_label, source_snapshot_label, pass_notes) are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess at brush and task-ID semantics.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('Record a no-spend Texture/Paint brush pass') and a purpose ('for evidence and iteration'). The 'no-spend' qualifier distinguishes it from credit-consuming generation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like gen_capture_texture_paint_snapshot or gen_compile_texture_paint_evidence, which is the main differentiator an agent needs.

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 when to use it (recording evidence and iteration of a brush pass) and the 'no-spend' hints it's the safe/cheap recording path. But it never explicitly says when NOT to use it or names alternatives such as gen_capture_texture_paint_snapshot for snapshots or gen_prepare_texture_paint_session for setup. The KB reference provides external guidance but the description itself lacks explicit routing.

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