krita_set_file_layer

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it specifies Bicubic filtering, requires that the source remain available, warns that undo is not guaranteed, and instructs to reuse operation_id for retries. These details align with and enrich the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, adding operational context an agent needs before calling the tool.

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 the primary action front-loaded, followed by filtering method and critical caveats. Every sentence adds distinct value and there is no filler.

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, the algorithm, the availability requirement, the undo risk, and the retry behavior, which is substantial for a destructive tool with no output schema. It stops short of explaining the scaling_method enum semantics and the exact relationship between root and path, but standard identifiers and schema constraints fill most remaining gaps.

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 meaning to some parameters: 'path' as the linked source, 'root' as a configured input root, 'scaling' for scaling_method, and 'operation_id' for retries. However, it does not explain instance_id, document_id, or node_id, relying on agent inference from standard naming conventions.

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 a file layer's linked PNG/JPEG source and scaling.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like krita_create_file_layer (creation vs. modification) and mentions the input root and filtering, making the action unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when replacing a file layer's source and scaling. It adds important preconditions and warnings ('Source must remain available; no guaranteed undo') and an idempotency instruction ('Reuse operation_id on retries'), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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