art.detail.speckle

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral information. It says 'Add' which implies mutation, but it does not disclose how the speckle dots are placed, whether random generation is deterministic via seed, or how the effects interact with existing pixels or the canvas.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and provides useful use-case examples. There is no redundant wording or content already present in the schema.

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 schema handles parameter details well, and the effect is simple to understand. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description could still provide more context about how the region is interpreted, how density and seed affect output, and what happens to the target canvas region.

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 are already documented with types, ranges, and descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the operation-level context, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Add'), a concrete resource (scattered speckle dots), and a target region with examples (dirt, stone, skin). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling detail tools like grain, crack, or highlight.

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 examples provide implicit context for when speckle might be appropriate, but there are no explicit when-to-use instructions or exclusions relative to sibling detail tools. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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