armorpaint_import_mask

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

Annotations are all false hints, so they do not convey much behavioral information; the description adds meaningful behavior: the image is grayscale and interpreted as a mask with white/black reveal semantics. It does not mention whether an existing mask is replaced, but the added context is still valuable.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the white/black behavior detail 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?

For a two-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose and mask behavior, and an output schema exists. However, it omits explicit parameter roles and any prerequisite context, such as requiring an existing layer to attach the mask to.

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 undocumented parameters. It only implicitly references a path and a layer, but it never explicitly maps path_name to the image file path or parent_id to the target layer ID.

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 states a specific verb and resource: importing a grayscale image as a mask for a paint or fill layer. It also explains the mask semantics (white reveals, black hides), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like import_texture.

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 the intended use case by mentioning masks for paint/fill layers, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as import_texture or import_material. No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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