apply_gradient_rect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain the effect of create_if_missing, whether existing pixels are overwritten, coordinate semantics, or whether the operation is destructive. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and target, and every phrase contributes to the core purpose.

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 11 parameters, 9 required, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits orientation defaults (horizontal defaults to true), layer creation behavior, coordinate interpretation, and expected return values, making correct invocation difficult.

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 11 parameters by name. It only conveys the general concept of a gradient rectangle, leaving agents to infer the meaning of color_start, color_end, horizontal, create_if_missing, and coordinate fields from names alone.

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 operation ('Apply'), the gradient type ('horizontal or vertical linear gradient'), the target shape ('rectangle'), and the target context ('named layer and animation frame'). This clearly distinguishes it from related drawing tools like draw_rectangle and apply_dither_gradient.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when a linear gradient rectangle is needed on a specific layer/frame. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving some selection burden on the agent.

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