apply_outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the outline is 1px and pixel-perfect, but does not explain whether it overlays, replaces, or mutates existing shapes, what happens when no shapes are present, or whether the operation is reversible. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool that presumably modifies canvas state.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No redundant words or filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a clear function.

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 simple tool with only three parameters, the description is minimally adequate but lacks key context: it does not explain the 'mode' parameter (inner vs outer), does not specify how shapes are identified, and does not describe the expected output or side effects. Given the absence of annotations, more detail would be needed for an agent to use it correctly without external knowledge.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it omits any reference to the 'mode' parameter (inner vs outer) or the meaning of color as palette index. The schema already documents these, so the description adds no extra value.

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 verb 'Generates' and the resource 'a 1px pixel-perfect outline around shapes on the canvas.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like draw_shape or set_pixel_batch, which draw or modify pixels differently.

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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draw_shape, set_pixel, or flood_fill. There is no context about prerequisites (e.g., shapes must already exist) or exclusions. An agent would have to infer that it applies to outlines only, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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