krita_merge_layer_down

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive and non-read-only, and the description complements this with useful behavioral detail: it must complete natively, the resulting handle is returned, and operation_id should be reused. It does not spell out that the original layers are removed, but destructiveHint already communicates that and the word 'merge' implies it.

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, each earning its place: action plus preconditions, return behavior, and operation_id guidance. The most important constraints are front-loaded, and no filler or redundancy is present.

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 provides the key preconditions, return value, and operation_id hint, which is good for a destructive layer operation with annotations covering safety. However, it leaves the role of node_id implicit and does not clarify the relationship between instance_id, document_id, and node_id. Given 0% schema coverage and no output schema, these omissions make the definition slightly incomplete for fully reliable 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 carry the parameter explanation burden, but it only addresses operation_id ('Reuse operation_id'). The other parameters, especially node_id, are not explicitly mapped to the upper or lower layer, leaving the agent to infer which layer is being merged down. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but that is not enough with zero schema coverage.

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 and resource: merge a paint layer with the adjacent paint layer below it. It includes key preconditions (visible, nonanimated, no masks/children/alpha inheritance) that make the operation unambiguous. The phrase 'paint layer' also differentiates it from the sibling krita_merge_vector_layer_down.

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 clearly states when the operation is valid by listing required conditions on both layers. It implies the alternative for vector layers by specifying paint layers, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool. This is strong practical guidance for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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