flood_fill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the key difference between contiguous=true/false. However, it does not mention that the tool modifies the document in place, whether it respects undo, or any side effects like symmetry handling. It lacks comprehensive transparency for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Flood fill from a seed pixel') and immediately explains a critical behavioral toggle. Every sentence earns its place.

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 10 parameters, 4 required, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values (e.g., success indication, render), error conditions, or interaction with layers and frames. The user would need external knowledge to invoke it confidently.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the 'contiguous' parameter by explaining its effect ('recolors every pixel that matches the seed color'), which goes beyond the schema's 'Default true'. For other parameters, the description adds no new semantics, but the key parameter is clarified.

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 'Flood fill from a seed pixel' with a specific verb (flood fill) and resource (pixels). It also explains the effect of the 'contiguous' parameter, distinguishing the tool's basic behavior from siblings like 'replace_color' or 'set_pixels'. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'replace_color' or 'set_pixels'. There is no mention of prerequisites, common patterns, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not when or why.

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