blur

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

The annotations mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description reinforces this by warning to 'Checkpoints first' – implying the operation overwrites/mutates and can be undone via checkpoint. It adds context about the destructive nature and a recommended safety step, but doesn't detail what exactly gets destroyed.

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 extremely short with no filler; it packs the core action and a key caveat into two fragments. It is efficient, though slightly cryptic.

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?

With three parameters and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining parameter meaning and return behavior. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with incomplete knowledge to invoke the tool 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% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (id, sigma, checkpoint). The agent gets no semantic information about what id represents, what sigma range is expected, or what the checkpoint flag controls.

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?

States the operation as 'Gaussian convolution' with the target explicitly being masks ('soften masks'). The purpose is identifiable from the name and description, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as denoise or sharpen.

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 only instruction is 'Checkpoints first,' which tells the agent to ensure a checkpoint exists before calling. No alternatives or when-to-use guidance is provided relative to sibling tools, leaving selection inference to the agent.

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