stamp_file

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior by listing blend modes and opacity. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., in-place modification, coordinate bounds, layer existence, error handling). It gives a basic operational view but lacks depth.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. It uses a clear docstring format with parameter lines. No unnecessary text, but the missing parameters reduce efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanations for several parameters and does not describe return values or behavioral edge cases, limiting its usefulness for an AI agent.

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 explain all parameters. It covers source, x, y, source_frame, opacity, and blend_mode, but ignores required parameters like 'filename' and optional ones like 'frame' and 'layer'. This leaves a significant gap in understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Composite another image/sprite file onto a layer at (x, y)') and identifies the resource (image/sprite file). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stamp_pattern (pattern stamping) or draw_pixels (pixel drawing).

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 description provides parameter details but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., stamp_pattern, draw_pixels). It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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