krita_edit_vector_shape

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior and idempotence, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: there is no guaranteed undo, an active view is required, and certain shape types are rejected. It also discloses the precise transform ordering. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 three dense sentences with high signal and no filler. The core behavior and transform ordering are front-loaded, followed by crucial constraints. 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?

For a 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description covers the most important operational constraints and transform semantics. However, it does not explain how snapshot_id/shape_index are obtained, what errors/rejections look like, or the meaning of the remaining optional parameters. Useful but not fully complete at this complexity level.

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 for the 14 parameters. It explains the semantics of scale/rotation/translate parameters and references snapshot and operation_id, but leaves name, visible, z_index, shape_index, and node_id semantics unaddressed. This is partial compensation rather than complete.

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 clearly identifies the action (edit), the resource (one top-level path shape), and the exact transform semantics (scale, clockwise rotate about image origin, translate). It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_vector_shape and delete_vector_shape by specifying top-level path shapes and the transform composition.

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 concrete usage constraints: it requires an active view, rejects groups/text/protected shapes, warns about no guaranteed undo, and instructs to reuse operation_id. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the stated constraints effectively tell an agent when this tool is applicable or invalid.

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