armorpaint_fill_layer

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

The description adds one useful behavioral detail—that object masks are respected—but says nothing about whether existing layer contents are overwritten, how selection state interacts with the layer_id/material_id parameters, or what happens with default values. Since all annotation hints are false, the description carries the full burden and does not fully disclose the operation's effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and scope. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting important behavioral and parameter details.

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 tool with two unannotated parameters and no schema descriptions, this description is incomplete. It does not clarify the default -1 values, the relationship between material_id and the selected material, or the overwrite behavior. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but not the preconditions and side effects an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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 clarify the parameters, but it only refers to 'the selected material' without explaining material_id or layer_id. It does not mention that -1 likely means 'current selection' or describe what an invalid ID causes, leaving both parameters under-explained.

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 ('Paint'), a resource ('entire paint layer'), and a modifier ('respecting object masks'), making the core action clear. It distinguishes itself from stroke painting by emphasizing 'entire paint layer,' though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool.

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 implies when to use this tool: to fill a whole paint layer with the selected material rather than painting individual strokes. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tool (e.g., paint_stroke, clear_layer) would be more appropriate.

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