Paint: Transform a layer or the canvas

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioural context beyond that: bilinear resampling quality and the fact that 'trim' shrinks to painted content. It stops short of explaining in-place mutation vs. copy or undo implications for transforms specifically.

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 tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the layer/canvas mode split, with no filler sentences. The closing line about layers/filters/undo is slightly tangential but still earns its place as shared-behaviour context.

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 14-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and only 43% schema description coverage, the description covers mode semantics and a couple of behavioural traits but omits geometry parameters (anchor, x/y, width/height, factor, degrees) and the preview/background output controls. Adequate but visibly incomplete.

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 only 43%, so the description must carry more weight. It usefully maps the mode values to layer vs. canvas scopes and clarifies the layer index/active-layer concept, but parameters such as x, y, anchor, factor, degrees, width/height, preview and background receive no meaning from the description. Baseline 3 given partial compensation.

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 states a specific verb and resource and then splits the operations into two scopes: 'scale | rotate | flip | translate on one layer' versus 'crop | resize | trim on the whole canvas.' This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like paint_rect or paint_filter without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('Target the canvas by name (created with paint_canvas)') and notes that layers/filters/undo behave consistently across drawing tools, which implies usage context. However it never states when to choose paint_transform over alternatives (e.g. paint_ops or paint_canvas) or any when-not conditions, leaving routing to inference.

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