krita_import_image_layer

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that there is 'no guaranteed undo transaction' and that 'operation_id' must be reused on retries. It also adds the RGBA/U8/sRGB destination constraint. These are important behavioral traits not inferable from the annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the primary action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a necessary constraint or retry behavior. 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 an 8-parameter import operation with no output schema, the description covers the key constraints: file type, root, offset, format compatibility, undo behavior, and idempotency. It omits return value details and active-layer side effects, but these are likely secondary given the operation's clear import semantics.

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 compensates by explaining 'root' (configured input root), 'path' (bounded PNG/JPEG), 'x/y' (explicit pixel offset), and 'operation_id' (reuse on retries). It does not explain instance_id or document_id, but these are common identifiers across sibling tools and are less critical.

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 states a specific verb ('Import') with a specific resource ('a bounded PNG or JPEG under a configured input root') and a clear destination ('as a new paint layer at an explicit pixel offset'). This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like krita_create_paint_layer (blank layer) or krita_create_file_layer (file layer) without requiring schema inspection.

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 clear operational context: import a bounded image file into a paint layer, with constraints on fit and idempotent retry behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to select it.

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