krita_create_file_layer

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description adds meaningful operational details: the layer is linked and watched, no guaranteed undo, retries should reuse operation_id, and scaling behavior is constrained. These details are not derivable from the schema and help the agent set expectations for this destructive mutation.

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: three sentences with purpose first and no filler. The wording 'Supports no scaling or fit to image, with Bicubic filtering' is slightly strained, but it still packs several constraints efficiently into a short space.

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?

The description covers the most important behavioral and parameter aspects, but it does not explain what a successful invocation returns or how to verify success/failure. With no output schema, an agent is left to infer the post-condition of the operation, although the operation_id retry instruction implies the operation is trackable.

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 coverage, the description compensates for the key tool-specific parameters: root via 'configured input root', path via 'PNG/JPEG file', scaling_method via the supported scaling options, and operation_id via the retry instruction. The phrase about scaling is slightly ambiguous against the enum, and generic IDs like instance_id/document_id remain implicit, but the core parameter meanings are covered.

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 opens with a specific verb plus resource: 'Create a linked PNG/JPEG file layer from a configured input root.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like paint/group/vector layers, and from krita_import_image_layer by emphasizing the linked external-file behavior.

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?

It provides actionable context: Krita watches the source file and the source must remain available. It also warns that scaling/fit-to-image is not directly supported and advises reusing operation_id on retries. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for embedded imports or scaled placement, so the guidance stops short of a complete when-not statement.

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