paint_from_commands

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that it performs a single save and reference refresh, which is a behavioral trait. It also lists the allowed operations and a restriction. However, it doesn't describe side effects, permissions, or the nature of the mutation beyond painting. It lacks details about reversibility, overwriting, or error handling.

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 extremely concise: three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by command format, use case, and a restriction. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 the complexity (6 params, complex commands array, output schema exists), the description covers the main concept but lacks essential details. It doesn't explain the command argument structure beyond the op field, nor how to specify coordinates, colors, or other attributes. It also doesn't mention how the batching works or the implication of a single save. The output schema may cover return values, but input usage is 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains the 'commands' parameter format (list of {op, ...} with allowed ops). It does not describe 'name', 'slot', 'scale', 'plan_id', or 'output_dir'. These are left entirely to the schema, which has no descriptions. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly fill all parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: batch painting commands on one slot with a single save and reference refresh. It lists the specific operations supported, distinguishing it from individual paint tools. The phrase 'Batch paint commands' is a specific verb+resource that immediately conveys what it does.

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 provides context by saying it is 'Preferred for multi-step pixel-art' and mentions specific use cases like silhouette and belt/cross details. It also forbids external generators, guiding usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool instead of calling individual paint commands (e.g., for single commands), though the 'batch' nature implies that.

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