import_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains resampling, palette mapping, and layer/stamp placement. However, it omits details on error behavior (e.g., what happens if both png_base64 and path are provided), aspect ratio handling during resizing, or constraints like file format limitations beyond PNG.

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?

Three sentences efficiently cover the core action, input specification, processing steps, and key distinction from a sibling. No fluff, front-loaded with the essential verb and resource.

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 complex tool with 16 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the main use case and important constraints. Minor gaps exist, such as not mentioning the role of the clip parameter or skip_transparent behavior, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool 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%, so parameter descriptions are already detailed. The description adds value by explaining the overall workflow (resample, palette, write) and the as_stamp parameter's purpose, which goes beyond individual parameter descriptions. It also clarifies the mutual exclusivity of png_base64 and path.

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 tool imports an external PNG onto the canvas, specifies the two input methods (png_base64 or path), and distinguishes it from open_document by noting it drops pixels into the current canvas rather than creating a new document.

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 explicitly positions this tool for importing external PNGs onto the current canvas and contrasts with open_document. However, it does not provide exhaustive guidance on when to use alternatives like paste_stamp or other import methods, though it does mention as_stamp for stamp storage.

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