krita_paint_path

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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires an active view, does not support per-point pressure, and retries should reuse the same operation_id. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, or idempotentHint=true.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the most critical precondition, the key limitation, and the retry contract. 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 destructive 9-parameter painting tool with no output schema, the description covers critical operational details: active-view requirement, no pressure, and idempotent retry semantics. However, it leaves gaps around parameter meanings, coordinate interpretation, and what happens to previous pixels, so an agent still has to infer or probe significant behavior.

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% and there are 9 required parameters. The description only hints at operation_id semantics (retry reuse) and the absence of per-point pressure for points; it does not explain instance_id, document_id, node_id, preset_id, color format, coordinate space, or how points map to the canvas. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the tool description needed to compensate and does not.

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: 'Paint one native brush path in image pixels.' The phrase 'native brush path' distinguishes this from sibling tools like krita_paint_bezier_path, krita_paint_line, and krita_paint_shape, and the scope 'in image pixels' clarifies the target surface.

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?

It gives clear operational context: the target must have an active view, and the tool has no per-point pressure support. It also tells the agent to reuse operation_id for retries. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for pressure-sensitive or other path types, but the context is sufficient to avoid obvious misuse.

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