gimp_layer_mask

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

The description explicitly states that apply 'elimina la máscara' (removes the mask) and remove 'la descarta' (discards it), i.e. non-additive, destructive updates. The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, which per MCP means 'only additive updates'. The description therefore contradicts the annotation's safety profile, which is exactly the kind of mismatch that risks an agent discarding a mask without caution.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and the three actions listed in parallel parentheticals; no filler. It is arguably over-packed (the parentheticals mix both action and mask_type semantics), and the description is written in Spanish while the surrounding tool ecosystem is English, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should carry more of the burden than it does. It covers action and mask-type semantics but omits prerequisites (the target layer must exist; mask_type=selection requires an active selection) and says nothing about what the tool returns or the state of the layer afterward.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it largely does: it disambiguates the mask_type values (white=all visible, black=all hidden, selection=from the active selection) and ties the action enum to concrete effects. Only layer_id and the bare 'alpha/copy/grayscale' values are left unexplained, but layer_id is self-evident.

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 the resource ('Máscaras de capa') and enumerates the three operations (add/apply/remove) with a gloss of each, so an agent can tell it creates, bakes, or discards a layer mask. It is a specific verb+resource. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like gimp_set_layer or gimp_select, so it stops short of 5.

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 glosses on add/apply/remove imply which action to choose for a given goal (create vs. bake-in vs. discard), which is useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance against alternative tools, no prerequisites (an existing layer, an active selection for mask_type=selection), and no when-not-to-use note.

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