Krita Clear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the primary behavior (clearing to a solid color) and implies a destructive action (clearing overwrites existing content). However, it doesn't disclose whether the clear affects only the active layer or the entire document, whether it creates a new layer, or whether it is undoable. The default color #1a1a2e is in the schema, not the description, so the description doesn't add that context.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't clarify whether the clear applies to the active layer or the whole canvas, which is a meaningful ambiguity for an agent deciding between krita_clear and krita_clear_selection. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation, but the layer scope is a gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'solid color' which maps to the 'color' parameter, but it doesn't explain the format (hex string), the default behavior if omitted, or that the default is #1a1a2e. The parameter name 'color' is self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'Clear the canvas to a solid color' clearly states the verb (clear), resource (canvas), and the effect (to a solid color). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like krita_clear_selection, which clears a selection rather than the whole canvas, and from krita_fill, which fills with a color but may not clear. A 5 is not warranted because it doesn't explicitly contrast with krita_clear_selection or mention that it affects the entire canvas.

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 implies usage: use when you want to reset the canvas to a solid color. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over krita_fill or krita_clear_selection, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., an open document). The context is clear enough for a simple tool, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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