krita_apply_diffusion_result

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it creates a new top paint layer, does not replace layers, and does not resize the canvas. It also clarifies idempotent retry behavior by instructing to reuse operation_id. These details meaningfully enrich the annotation hints without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by high-value constraints about retries and non-destructive behavior. Every clause 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's effect, placement, bounds, retry semantics, and key safety constraints. It lacks explicit parameter-level guidance and usage alternatives, but the core information needed to invoke this correctly is present.

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 description coverage is 0% for 5 parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining them. It only addresses operation_id ('Reuse operation_id on retries') and vaguely ties the action to a document/result. The other parameters (instance_id, document_id, generation_id, result_id) are not semantically explained beyond their names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Apply') with a clear resource ('an inspected bridge-owned result'), target ('its original active document'), and result ('as a new top paint layer at the generation bounds'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like krita_get_diffusion_result or krita_create_paint_layer.

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 ('an inspected... result') and gives retry guidance ('Reuse operation_id on retries'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. Usage context is present, but exclusion and alternative guidance are missing.

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