krita_set_transparency_mask

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond this: 'no guaranteed undo transaction' and 'Reuse operation_id.' This is valuable transparency for a destructive operation, even though it does not detail exactly which mask settings are lost.

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 focused sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with the most important operational caveat. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with five required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this description is adequate but not complete. It provides the key action and a safety warning, but leaves ambiguous where operation_id comes from, what 'opaque'/'transparent' sources concretely do, and what confirmation or failure information the caller should expect.

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 for the five required parameters. It only loosely explains 'source' as 'selection copy or constant canvas opacity' and hints at operation_id via 'Reuse operation_id.' The exact meanings of 'opaque' vs 'transparent', the origin of operation_id, and the role of node_id/document_id/instance_id are left mostly to inference from parameter names.

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 names a specific verb ('Replace'), a specific resource ('an existing transparency mask's coverage'), and the available inputs ('selection copy or constant canvas opacity'). It clearly signals this is a mutation of an existing mask rather than creation, distinguishing it from krita_create_transparency_mask.

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 phrase 'existing transparency mask' implies you should use this only when a mask already exists, and 'Reuse operation_id' gives an operational hint. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or names alternatives such as creating a new transparency mask or editing history.

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