Create a texture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the texture is blank by default and that size falls back to the project texture resolution, but it says nothing about the side effect implied by select (default true) potentially changing the current selection, nor about undo behavior or permissions.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause carries information the schema does not. No filler.

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 mutating creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of name and select, the effect on selection state, and any indication of what is returned or how to undo.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers fill ('optionally filled with a colour') and size/width/height (defaults to project texture resolution), but leaves name and select entirely undocumented, so three of five parameters still have no semantic explanation anywhere.

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 ('Create a blank texture') and adds the distinguishing qualifier 'blank', which separates it from siblings like bb_generate_texture, bb_draw_texture, and bb_import_texture. It does not name those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 versus bb_generate_texture or bb_draw_texture, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only usage hint is 'optionally filled with a colour', which is weak routing information.

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