gimp_stroke_selection

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the stroke applies to the 'current selection' (implying a selection should exist) but says nothing about undo behavior, what happens with no active selection, or whether the stroke is applied to the active layer.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the sparseness reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 four parameters at 0% schema coverage and zero required parameters, the description leaves half the inputs undocumented for a mutation tool. The existence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the argument-level gaps remain substantial.

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 parameter meaning, yet it only covers two of the four parameters (width in px, color). The image_id and layer_id parameters, including that both are nullable and default to null, are left entirely unexplained.

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: it draws ('dibuja') the outline ('contorno') of the current selection. This distinguishes it reasonably from gimp_fill (fills interior) and gimp_draw, though it never explicitly names the sibling it differs from, so it stops short of a 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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus gimp_fill, gimp_draw, or gimp_modify_selection, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the one-line purpose.

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