apply_convolution

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

No annotations are provided. The description says 'Aseprite file to modify' implying the tool mutates the file, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 structured as a docstring with a brief overview followed by parameter descriptions. It is clear and mostly concise, though the parameter section could be slightly streamlined. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context for the parameters and their defaults. It covers the essential information for using the tool, including how to specify a region. Missing details about return values or errors are minor given the tool's straightforward nature.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: filename, matrix (with examples like 'blur-3x3'), layer_name, frame_index, and optional region parameters with conditions (width>0 & height>0 to scope). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types.

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 it is a 'Native convolution filter' and lists examples like blur, sharpen, edge, emboss. This effectively communicates the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from other image manipulation tools in the sibling list.

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 implies usage for applying convolution filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like adjust_brightness_contrast or adjust_hsl. It does reference list_convolution_matrices for finding matrix names, providing some guidance.

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