art.critic.refine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation of the canvas ('execute refinement actions') but does not describe side effects, failure behavior, partial execution, undoability, or whether the actions are applied in order. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating tool.

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 with essentially no filler. It is quick to parse, though 'improve canvas quality' is a vague outcome statement that does not add much operational detail to the tool's behavior.

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 core parameters are named, but the tool's behavior is opaque: no output schema, no error semantics, no detail about how refinement actions affect the canvas, and no guidance on handling invalid or unknown action names. An agent could construct a plausible call from the schema, but it would not know what the call actually returns or guarantees.

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 both parameters. The description adds only an abstract note that actions come from a critique and does not explain how action names or params are interpreted 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Execute refinement actions ... to improve canvas quality') and ties the tool to critique output. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from related tools like art.critic.evaluate or canvas mutation tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'from a critique' implies this tool follows a critique, but it does not name alternatives, explain when not to use it, or describe the intended workflow relationship with tools like art.critic.evaluate.

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