krita_paint_line

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

The description contradicts the annotations: idempotentHint is true, yet the description states 'Each call is a separate native stroke,' meaning repeated identical calls produce multiple strokes (non-idempotent). This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, despite destructiveHint true, the description does not disclose that painting may overwrite existing pixel data.

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 no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the stroke-semantics limitation is a useful addition. Every clause 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?

The tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, yet the description only covers stroke type and pressure/coordinate basics. It does not explain expected behavior such as whether the line is applied to the currently active layer, how the brush preset affects the stroke, or what the result looks like. Given the complexity, the description is under-specified.

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. It adds some meaning by calling out 'integer image coordinates' (start/end) and 'endpoint pressures' (pressure_start/pressure_end), but this is minimal and the schema already implies these from names and types. The description does not clarify many other required parameters such as preset_id, node_id, size_px, opacity, or color beyond what their names imply.

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 uses a specific verb ('Paint') and a specific resource ('one native line'), and the term 'native line' distinguishes it from sibling tools like paint_path, paint_bezier_path, and paint_shape. It also clarifies the coordinate type and stroke semantics, leaving no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 when to use this tool: when a single straight native line stroke is desired. 'Each call is a separate native stroke' hints that multiple strokes require multiple calls, but it does not explicitly reference alternatives such as paint_path for multi-segment lines or paint_bezier_path for curves. No clear exclusions are provided, so 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.