armorpaint_layer_action

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds useful context by identifying which specific operations are dangerous and recommending a checkpoint before merging or deleting. It also clarifies the scope of behavior to include mask operations and conversions.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the supported actions and ends with a single actionable safety warning, so every clause 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 multi-action destructive tool, the description is too thin: it omits how reordering is parameterized via index, does not clarify prerequisites or side effects, and provides no context on whether conversion or mask actions require additional state. The output schema may cover return values, but invocation semantics remain incomplete.

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 must compensate for missing parameter detail. It partially does so by mapping action enum values to plain language ('merge' for merge_down, 'reorder' for move, 'convert' for to_paint), but it does not explain how index is used or what layer_id must reference. The action semantics are covered, while the other parameters remain under-specified.

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 clearly names the resource (layer) and the operations ('Duplicate, delete, merge, reorder, or convert a layer; apply or invert masks'), so the tool's purpose is unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling layer tools, but the action list makes it distinct from create_layer, set_layer, clear_layer, and export_layer.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives like set_layer, clear_layer, or select_layer. The only directive is 'Save a checkpoint before merging or deleting,' which is a safety precaution rather than a usage-selection guideline.

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