art.detail.grain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states the mutating behavior ('Add ... grain lines'), but it does not mention whether existing region content is overlaid, replaced, or preserved, nor does it describe determinism or result behavior. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 wasted words. The parenthetical examples are useful and the entire content is highly scannable.

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?

The 9-parameter schema is fully documented and the core action is clear, but the description does not explain when to use this tool versus sibling detail effects, how it interacts with existing region content, or what an agent should expect after invocation. Given no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally complete rather than rich.

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 every parameter is already described in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the top-level grain concept and material hints, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Add directional grain lines to a region' uses a specific verb and concrete output, and the parenthetical examples 'wood, cloth' distinguish grain from the other art.detail.* effects such as speckle, crack, or texture. An agent can tell what the tool does with little inference.

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 examples '(wood, cloth)' imply when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives such as art.detail.texture or art.detail.speckle, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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