generate_outfit_slot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, and it does well: it discloses the plan_outfit requirement, the no-clipping behavior, and the fact that this tool does not perform painting but imports or re-syncs. It could add more about overwrite behavior or failure cases, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence earns its place: optional role, preferred alternative, concrete usage, limitation, and gate/warning. The three short paragraphs are easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the tool's role, alternatives, gate, and a key behavioral limitation, which is good for contextual understanding. However, it leaves several parameters undefined and uses jargon like 'body-under ref' without elaboration, so an agent may still be uncertain about required inputs and their exact meaning.

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 for the six parameters. It explicitly explains design_image_path (RGBA PNG input), and plan_outfit is mentioned as a gate, but it leaves name, slot, scale, plan_id, and output_dir mostly unexplained. Only the slot shows up implicitly in layers/<slot>.png.

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+resource: import/finalize a design layer and refresh body-under refs. It clearly distinguishes itself from the preferred MCP paint tools by positioning itself as the optional import/re-sync path rather than a generation or painting tool.

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 names the preferred alternatives (paint_pixels, fill_rect, paint_from_commands), states when to use this tool instead (importing an existing RGBA PNG or re-syncing refs), and gives a hard gate (requires plan_outfit). It also tells the agent what not to do: never use Shell/PIL or GenerateImage for the layer.

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