scnr

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds an actionable warning to checkpoint first before running. It also adds the non-linear stage context, which helps the agent understand expected usage without contradicting the annotations.

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, each earning its place by communicating either the core purpose or an essential usage warning. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and appropriately sized for a focused process tool.

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 destructive six-parameter image operation with no output schema, this description is incomplete. It omits most parameter semantics, does not explain return behavior, and fails to provide comparison guidance against sibling color-processing tools.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It only hints at the color parameter by saying 'green (or other colour)' and provides no explanation of amount, protection, or preserve_lightness.

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 the tool performs SCNR color-cast removal, specifically for green or other colors, and identifies the typical non-linear workflow stage. It is reasonably clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like color_calibrate or background_neutralize.

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?

It gives some contextual guidance by saying 'non-linear stage typically' and 'Checkpoints first,' which implies when and with what precaution to use it. However, it does not name alternatives or define when to choose this tool over similar color-adjustment siblings.

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