krita_transform_layer

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

Annotations already declare destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds important context beyond them: it rewrites raster pixels, has no guaranteed undo transaction, is not a transform mask, and follows a precise scale-rotate-translate order. This gives the agent a strong model of the operation's real-world consequences.

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 three dense sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and constraints, the second flags destructiveness and non-mask semantics, and the third gives the idempotency rule. Each 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?

The description covers the resource type, transform order, pivot semantics, safety, and idempotency, which is most of what an agent needs before invoking a 10-parameter destructive operation. However, with no output schema it does not state what the tool returns or whether the operation is asynchronous; the operation_id retry note provides a partial hint but not a full picture.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates meaningfully: it defines the pivot as an explicit image-pixel coordinate, clarifies the rotation direction as clockwise, and explains operation_id's role in retries. The scale, translate, and rotation parameters are not individually documented, but their meanings are recoverable from the schema names, defaults, and the stated transform sequence.

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 ('Resample one supported RGBA/U8/sRGB paint layer') and spells out the exact transform sequence: scale, clockwise rotate around pivot, translate. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a native transform mask, so an agent can tell this direct raster operation apart from non-destructive transforms.

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 usage context: it applies only to supported paint layers, is destructive with no guaranteed undo, and should not be confused with a native transform mask. It also provides an explicit retry rule ('Reuse operation_id on retries'). It does not name alternative sibling tools such as krita_transform_canvas, but the caveats effectively tell the agent when not to use it.

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