art.detail.edge_break

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully convey behavioral expectations. It only says 'apply edge breakup', without clarifying that this modifies the existing canvas/session, whether it is destructive, how the edge is detected, whether it affects the whole image, or what the visual result is. This is too thin for a 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 with no filler or redundancy. It states the action and the intended aesthetic outcome efficiently.

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 detail operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the side effects on the existing canvas, what happens to the original edges, the role of preserve_outline behaviorally, or what a successful call returns or changes. The tool seems simple, but the write operation itself is insufficiently contextualized.

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?

Because schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents session_id, amount, seed, and preserve_outline. The description adds no extra semantic value for these parameters. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 'Apply edge breakup to avoid perfectly geometric silhouettes' names a specific verb and resource, and tells the agent the aesthetic goal. It is distinct enough from sibling detail tools like crack, grain, or texture, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 'to avoid perfectly geometric silhouettes' gives some indication of when to use this tool, but there are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions. An agent must infer when edge breakup is preferred over tools like art.detail.crack, art.detail.grain, or art.detail.texture.

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