flood_fill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavior. It mentions 'Large fills return a warning field' and that the tool is 'Optional,' but it does not disclose side effects such as overwriting existing pixels, permission requirements, or rate limits. Some useful behavioral context is added, but significant gaps remain.

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 reasonably concise, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The usage warning is valuable and earns its place, though the standalone 'Optional.' adds little information and could be integrated elsewhere.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not define the purpose of most parameters nor explain when flood_fill should be used (only when it should not be used). The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the missing parameter semantics and usage context create a significant completeness gap.

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 compensate, but it only references (x,y) as the seed point and does not explain name, slot, color, scale, plan_id, or output_dir. The meaning of most parameters remains undocumented, leaving agents to guess from parameter names alone.

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: flood-fill connected pixels on the design layer from (x,y). It clearly differentiates from siblings by advising against flooding the entire body silhouette and pointing to fill_rect / paint_pixels / paint_from_commands for shapes, making the tool's distinct role evident.

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 explicitly warns against using flood_fill as the sole outfit designer and names alternative tools (fill_rect, paint_pixels, paint_from_commands) for shape creation. This gives agents clear when-not-to-use guidance and directs them to the appropriate alternatives, leaving little to inference.

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