set_fill_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Set and enable') but does not explain permissions, reversibility, whether enabling channels disables others, or what happens to existing channel values.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the action and gives useful examples without burying them.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and completely undescribed parameters, the description is too thin. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but key invocation details such as what 'uid' refers to and how 'values' maps to channels are missing.

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 should compensate, but it only partially does so. The examples of Roughness/Metallic help interpret the 'values' map as channel names, but 'uid' is unexplained and the schema's scalar-or-array value options are not clarified.

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: set and enable multiple uniform Fill channels, with Roughness and Metallic as concrete examples. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic fill-parameter tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as set_fill_parameters or set_active_channels.

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 gives no guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites such as whether a fill layer must be selected first. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'uniform Fill channels'.

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