art.detail.shadow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool adds shadows, implying an additive, non-destructive paint operation on a region. However, it does not mention whether it replaces, blends with, or overlays existing pixels, nor does it describe any side effects beyond the plain 'add' framing. This is acceptable but minimal.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler words. The verb is placed first, the object is clear, and the purpose clause is tacked on without bloating the length. It earns its place entirely.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must do more work than usual. It covers what and why but not key contextual details like how 'clusters' are distributed, whether the region is modified in place, or what the call returns. The 100% parameter schema coverage balances this, but for a detail function with eight required parameters, a bit more descriptive context would be welcome.

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 coverage is 100%, and every parameter has a helpful description (e.g., 'Random seed', 'Top-left X coordinate', 'Shadow density (0-1)'). The description itself adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it hits the baseline of 3 rather than outperforming it.

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 is a single, specific action: 'Add shadow clusters to a region for depth/occlusion.' It names a concrete operation (add shadow clusters), the target (a region), and the intended artistic effect (depth/occlusion). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like art.detail.texture, art.detail.highlight, or art.detail.speckle, even without opening the input schema.

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 'for depth/occlusion' gives a clear context for when the tool is appropriate: whenever the user wants to convey shadow-driven depth. It does not explicitly name exclusions or suggested alternative tools, so it is not a perfect 5, but it communicates the intended usage scenario without relying on inference.

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