art.detail.cluster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate behavioral expectations itself. It only says 'Create a pixel cluster' and does not mention whether existing pixels are overwritten, what happens to out-of-bounds coordinates, how the seed affects irregular shapes, or whether the action is reversible. The mutating nature of the tool is implied but its side effects and constraints are not disclosed.

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 efficient sentence with the main action and semantic focus front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary examples or filler, though it could have been structured slightly better with a separate 'when to use' clause.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too spare. It does not explain what a cluster consists of, which shape/seed choices are intended, how the cluster interacts with the current canvas state, or what the agent should expect after execution. The schema covers parameter names well, but the higher-level operational context is missing.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters with individual descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds only a general conceptual framing ('position' and 'shape') and does not explain the seed parameter's interaction with irregular shapes or the coordinate system beyond what the schema 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 clearly specifies the action ('Create'), the object ('a pixel cluster'), the location ('on the canvas'), and the manner ('at a given position with a specified shape'). It is unambiguous about the core purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling canvas and detail tools like art.canvas.draw_circle or art.detail.speckle.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the many related drawing and detail tools in the sibling list, such as art.detail.plan, art.detail.texture, art.canvas.draw_noise, or art.detail.clean_clusters. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so the agent is left to infer the appropriate usage context.

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