Krita Fill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes the expected visual effect but does not disclose whether the fill overwrites existing pixels, how radius relates to the circle, whether it requires a target layer, or what output or state changes occur. This is thin for a drawing mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and target while remaining compact, which is appropriate for a simple 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?

Given no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and a fill operation that depends on prior state like the current color and active layer, the description is too sparse. It omits the radius entirely and does not explain behavioral context such as overwrite semantics or whether a layer must be selected.

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. It clarifies that x and y are the circle's location, but it completely omits the radius parameter, including the default of 50, units, or coordinate-system details. The schema values alone do not provide this meaning.

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 names a specific verb ('Fill'), a resource ('a circle'), and the location ('at (x, y)'), with 'current color' making the behavior reasonably clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like krita_draw_shape or krita_stroke.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites such as setting the current color first, and no mention of when another fill/drawing tool would be more appropriate. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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