art.detail.cavity

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

There are zero annotations. The description says 'Add' but does not disclose whether this modifies the canvas in place, whether it is reversible, whether it invokes any side effects, or whether it requires prior session setup. It only describes the visual result (dark center with light rim), which is true but thin context for an operation with 9 required parameters.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then a parenthetical that adds the important visual detail. There is no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant context.

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 all 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this is a minimum-viable description. The schema covers parameter meaning, and the description states the purpose clearly. However, it omits how coordinates and dimensions interact with the drawing, the role of seed/count in practical use, and any expected visual or stateful result.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains dark_color as 'cavity center' and light_color as 'rim', so the description's parenthetical does not add meaning beyond it. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 the action and resource clearly: 'Add cavity details (dark center with light rim) to a region.' It identifies a specific visual operation and is distinguishable from siblings like art.detail.crack or art.detail.speckle by the 'cavity' term, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The description only gives the action without explaining why an agent should choose this tool over other art.detail.* operations. The sibling landscape is rich (speckle, crack, grain, etc.), so the omission is noticeable.

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