gimp_new_image

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context such as whether the new image becomes active, whether it consumes resources, or what happens on invalid dimensions, so it contributes little beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is a terse fragment, but it still earns its place by clarifying the background parameter values.

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?

For a 5-parameter creation tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema and no annotation detail, the description is too thin: units for width/height, valid mode semantics, the meaning of the default name 'Capa base', and whether the resulting image id is returned are all unaddressed.

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 carries the full burden. It only explains the 'background' parameter and partially at that (a color, or the keywords 'transparent', 'foreground', 'background'), leaving width, height, mode and name completely undocumented. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Crea una imagen nueva'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like gimp_open_image or gimp_new_layer. It does not, however, explicitly name those alternatives or clarify scope (canvas vs. document).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus gimp_open_image (existing file) or gimp_new_layer (adding a layer to an existing image). The agent must infer the context from the name alone.

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