ap_capture_to_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that the result is persisted only on .arm save, cannot be read outside ArmorPaint, is captured from the already-drawn frame, may include the UI overlay, and cannot reproduce ArmorPaint's two-frame settle.

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 relatively long but every clause carries essential caveats (persistence, visibility, one-frame timing, UI overlay, patch requirement). It is front-loaded with purpose before the caveats, though it could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core use case, the alternative tool, the persistence model, the platform requirement, and the rendering timing limitations. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 100%: both width and height have clear 'Capture width/height in pixels' descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter-specific behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource-target statement: 'Capture the 3D viewport into the project as a packed texture asset.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling ap_capture_viewport by positioning that tool for actually viewing the result.

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 gives an explicit conditional: use this on stock ArmorPaint when pixels should land inside the project, and use ap_capture_viewport when the goal is to actually see the viewport, noting the optional viewport patch requirement. No inference is required.

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