gegl_filter_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not say whether removal is irreversible, whether opacity/visible changes are reversible via undo, what happens when action is an unrecognized value, or what the call returns.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and identifier scheme front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is a contributing factor to the missing action semantics.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and no documented parameter descriptions, one sentence is thin. The two most consequential unknowns — valid action values and removal irreversibility — are absent.

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 compensate. It loosely maps opacity and visibility to the two optional parameters and clarifies filter_id as GIMP's identifier, but the required, enum-less "action" string — the parameter that actually selects the operation — has no documented vocabulary anywhere, which is a serious gap.

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?

"Change a filter's visibility/opacity or remove it" gives a specific verb set and resource, and "by its GIMP filter ID" fixes the addressing scheme. It stops short of naming how it differs from gegl_apply_filter or gegl_list_filters, so an agent must infer the modify-vs-create distinction.

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 possessive "a filter's" implies this operates on an already-applied filter, contrasting with gegl_apply_filter, but that routing is never stated. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g., needing a filter ID from gegl_list_filters), and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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