krita_set_diffusion_controls

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

The annotations already declare destructive and idempotent hints, but the description adds crucial specifics: replacing the entire conditioning list, [] clearing it, and 'no guaranteed undo'. It also discloses that no control maps or images are generated, which is beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Five short, dense sentences, each carrying distinct information. The core action and clearing behavior are front-loaded, followed by parameter constraints, side-effect disclaimers, and preconditions. No filler or repetition.

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?

Covers the essential behavioral contract: what is replaced, how to clear, constraints, prerequisites, and lack of undo. The region_node_id parameter is only implied by 'root or single-linked region' rather than explicitly mapped, but the description is otherwise complete for a setter with no output schema.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates for the main parameter: entries reference existing image layers, strength range 0..2 in steps of 0.02, and start/end ordering constraint. It also clarifies operation_id reuse. It doesn't enumerate the mode enum or explain instance_id/document_id, but those are identifiably straightforward.

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: 'Replace the root or single-linked region's entire conditioning list'. It also distinguishes the tool by stating what it does not do ('Does not generate control maps or images'), separating it from generation siblings like krita_generate_diffusion.

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?

Provides explicit preconditions: 'Inspect is_supported before generation' and 'Requires active Generate document'. It also gives an operational instruction to 'Reuse operation_id'. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the 'Does not generate' exclusion clarifies when not to use this tool.

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