art.detail.highlight

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 only says the tool adds highlights; it doesn't disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether existing clusters are preserved, how deterministic the seed/color/density interaction is, or what happens in overlapping regions.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence that names the operation, the target, and the purpose without unnecessary filler or repetition of the schema fields.

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 eight required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description lacks important context about how the tool modifies the canvas, what 'clusters' and 'density' do visually, and whether the operation is deterministic. It is minimally sufficient but leaves significant room for mis-invocation.

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%, and the schema already explains the parameters clearly. The description adds a high-level purpose but no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not compensational.

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 verb and resource: 'Add highlight clusters to a region', with a useful purpose clause 'for specular/light reflection.' However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling detail tools like art.detail.cluster or art.detail.shadow, so the agent may need to open other definitions to differentiate 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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose clause hints at a use case, but it never mentions sibling tools or conditions that would favor this operator over others in the art.detail.* family.

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