art.detail.crack

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 states that the tool adds crack patterns, but it does not mention that this mutates a canvas session, whether it is deterministic given the seed, how the region interacts with existing content, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a drawing/mutation 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, front-loaded sentence and is easy to scan. It contains little waste, though it does repeat the word 'crack' already present in the tool name. It is concise and structured well, but it could have used slightly more space for material context or behavioral detail.

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 that this is an 8-parameter mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema, this single-clause description is not sufficiently complete. It does not explain how the operation affects the active session/canvas, what the seed controls, how the region is treated, or what the caller should expect after invocation. The selection of an agent would need to rely mostly on the schema and the tool name.

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 all eight parameters already have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not provide additional parameter meaning, such as how seed drives crack generation or how x/y/width/height define the affected region. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a clear action verb ('Add'), a specific resource ('crack patterns'), and a concrete target ('a region') with material context ('stone, ice surfaces'). It distinguishes this tool from similar sibling detail tools such as art.detail.texture or art.detail.grain because it names a specific pattern type, though it does not explicitly compare against those siblings.

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 parenthetical 'stone, ice surfaces' gives an implicit context for when to use this tool, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like art.detail.edge_break, art.detail.cavity, or art.detail.texture. The usage signal is inferable but not explicit.

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