art.detail.clean_clusters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It indicates that pixels will be merged, but it does not state whether this is destructive, reversible, permission-sensitive, or what happens to isolated pixels that have no nearby larger cluster. For a mutating tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the operation type ('Cleanup pass') and then the concrete action. It avoids filler and does not merely repeat the tool name, though a tiny bit more side-effect context would make it richer.

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?

Despite having only two well-described parameters, this is a mutating canvas operation with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not cover what effects the cleanup has on the canvas state, what a good workflow order is, or what happens in edge cases like a pixel with no nearby larger cluster. It is minimally viable but not complete for an agent.

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%, so both session_id and min_cluster_size are already documented. The description adds conceptual context by framing small clusters as 'orphan/isolated pixels,' which helps agents understand min_cluster_size, but it does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'merge orphan/isolated pixels into nearest larger cluster.' The 'Cleanup pass' label provides useful context that this is a post-processing step. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but its operation is clear enough to distinguish it from clustering or texture-generation tools.

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 phrase 'Cleanup pass' implies a post-processing stage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related detail tools such as art.detail.cluster or art.detail.pass. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives are mentioned.

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