combine_stars

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds little beyond that. It mentions 'optionally into a new view' but does not clarify default behavior (whether it overwrites the starless image) or any side effects. No contradiction, but no added disclosure of behavioral traits.

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 sentence and is concise, but it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not bloated, but the sparseness is a weakness rather than a strength.

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 4 parameters, destructive behavior, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It lacks information about return values, edge cases, or how the parameters interact, making it incomplete for an agent to call 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 provides no explanation of the parameters. While starless_id and stars_id are somewhat self-explanatory, star_boost and new_id have no meaning from the description alone. The tool completely fails to convey parameter semantics.

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 states the operation: 'Screen-blend a stars image back onto a starless image (PixelMath)' with a specific verb and resources. It distinguishes this from generic pixel_math by naming the specific image types involved, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like remove_stars.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when this is appropriate (e.g., after remove_stars), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen.

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