fill_area_at

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a flood fill starting at (x,y), whether it operates on the visible layer or entire frame, or if it is destructive. There is no indication of side effects, such as modifying existing pixels or requiring specific layer states.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It front-loads the main action but omits essential information, making it insufficient for correct tool use.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings with similar names, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the fill algorithm, how to interpret results, or any constraints. Users must guess the tool's behavior from the name and schema alone.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, yet the tool description adds no parameter explanations. Key parameters like 'x', 'y' (start point), 'color' (fill color), and 'create_if_missing' (behavior when layer missing) are not clarified. The description solely mentions 'layer/frame' without elaborating on any parameter semantics.

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 'Fill an area on a specific layer/frame,' which identifies the action and target but is vague. It does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'fill_area' or clarify whether this is a flood fill, rectangle fill, or other operation. The purpose is clear enough but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fill_area', 'draw_pixels_at', or other fill-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool should be chosen over siblings.

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