krita_paint_bezier_path

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context: the requirement for an active view, the lack of per-point pressure support, and the instruction to reuse operation_id on retries. This goes beyond the schema and annotations by clarifying behavioral constraints and retry semantics. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the data format, then constraints. Each sentence adds distinct, necessary information.

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 covers the core operation, segment format, a key prerequisite, and retry idempotency. However, with 10 required parameters and no output schema, it omits meaningful context about the lifecycle of instance/document/node IDs, what preset_id controls, and the exact meaning of start. For a complex painting operation this feels incomplete.

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 all 10 parameters. It does explain the complex 'segments' structure ('Each segment is [control1, control2, endpoint], each a coordinate pair') and hints at operation_id semantics, but it leaves most parameters (instance_id, document_id, node_id, preset_id, size_px, opacity, color, start) unexplained. The partial compensation is not sufficient for this many parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Paint one native cubic Bézier path with 1–256 segments in image pixels.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling painting tools like krita_paint_line (line) and krita_paint_shape (shape) by emphasizing the cubic Bézier path type, segment count, and pixel units.

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 implicit usage context by stating 'Requires the target's active view' and 'no per-point pressure', which helps an agent know preconditions and constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like krita_paint_path or what conditions would make a different tool more appropriate. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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