krita_add_vector_shape

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: shapes are editable, coordinates are in image pixels, fill/stroke is limited to solid sRGB or none, an active view is required, and operation_id supports retries. It does not elaborate on the destructiveHint implications, but the annotation already flags destructive behavior, so the description is not misleading on that point.

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 compact and front-loaded: each sentence carries practical information. It states the core capability first, then important constraints and retry guidance, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a complex discriminated-union geometry parameter, the description gives essential operational clues but not a complete call contract. It mentions reinspection for a shape address, but does not describe the return value, success behavior, or how the target node/document is resolved beyond the requirement for an active view.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: it clarifies geometry units, fill/stroke color constraints, and operation_id retry semantics. However, it leaves several parameters such as instance_id, document_id, node_id, name, and stroke_width without added explanation, so compensation is incomplete.

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 states a clear action and resource: add an editable rectangle, ellipse, polygon, or cubic Bezier shape. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from many siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools like krita_paint_shape or krita_edit_vector_shape.

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 gives useful operational constraints: an active view is required, reinspection is needed to obtain a shape address, and operation_id should be reused on retries. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage comparison to inference.

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