krita_create_transparency_mask

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

Annotations already declare the operation is destructive, non-read-only, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: it uses a copy of the selection, preserves the canvas selection, and instructs reuse of operation_id on retries, which aligns with idempotency. It does not elaborate on what exactly is destroyed or whether an existing mask is replaced, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action and target are front-loaded, followed by key constraints and the retry instruction. Every sentence 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?

Covers the core operation well for a mutating tool, but with no output schema and destructiveHint=true, an agent is left without return-value expectations, failure conditions, or behavior when the layer already has a transparency mask. This is a meaningful gap for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for source ('copy of the selection or constant canvas opacity'), node_id ('explicit paint/group layer'), and operation_id (retry semantics). However, it leaves name, document_id, and instance_id unexplained and does not clarify the difference between opaque and transparent source values.

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?

States a specific action ('attach a transparency mask') with a clear target resource type ('explicit paint/group layer') and data source options. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling krita_set_transparency_mask, so an agent may not know which to choose without further investigation.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as krita_set_transparency_mask. It gives an operational retry instruction, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual selection criteria are mentioned.

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