krita_delete_vector_shape

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-read-only; the description adds valuable context by specifying preconditions ('unprotected', 'top-level', 'unchanged layer snapshot') and recommending verification after completion. It does not contradict the annotations and adds a behavioral protocol beyond the structured flags.

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 short sentences, with the primary action and object in the first sentence and the workflow guidance in the second. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 destructive operation with six required parameters and no output schema, the description lacks parameter explanations and crucial details like how to obtain a valid snapshot, how shape_index is indexed, or error behavior on protected shapes. It provides a minimal workflow but is not robust enough for reliable autonomous 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, but it only tangentially references operation_id ('Reuse operation_id') and the snapshot concept. It does not explain instance_id, document_id, node_id, snapshot_id, or shape_index semantics, leaving the agent to guess from property 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 explicitly states the action (delete) and the target (one unprotected top-level path shape from an unchanged layer snapshot in the active document). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like add_vector_shape, edit_vector_shape, and delete_layer. The qualifiers 'unprotected', 'top-level', and 'unchanged layer snapshot' precisely define the scope.

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 usage context by requiring an unchanged layer snapshot and an unprotected top-level shape, and it gives a workflow hint to reuse operation_id and inspect after completion. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so the agent must infer usage from the constraints.

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