create_image

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 states the image types but does not mention side effects such as creating a new active document, adding to the image stack, or any required conditions. This is a thin description 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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and delivers the key variation (image types) efficiently.

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's low complexity (3 parameters), the description is almost sufficient. It defines the action, the target, and the value domain for the optional parameter. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it's still slightly sparse compared to the richness implied by the sibling operations, but adequate for basic invocation.

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 input schema has no per-parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It partially does by enumerating valid values for base_type ('RGB, GRAY, or INDEXED'), but width and height remain unstated. This adds some meaning over the schema but leaves gaps.

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 'Create a new RGB, GRAY, or INDEXED image' clearly states the action (create) and resource (image), and specifies the supported image types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_open_images, get_active_image, and open_image, which handle existing images rather than creating new ones.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a new blank image is needed) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention that open_image or other creation-adjacent tools could be used for different purposes, so guidance is left to inference.

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