Krita Flatten

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the core effect ('all layers ... into one'), which implies flattening is destructive to layer structure, but it does not mention undo behavior, hidden layers, or whether the active document on disk is affected. The core effect is transparent enough, but edge-case behavior is left unstated.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, accurately front-loading the verb and resource. Every word contributes.

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 zero-parameter operation with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and scope. It omits usage-alternative guidance and explicit caution about destructiveness, but these are minor for such a simple tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters; the schema is completely documented, so the schema carries all necessary parameter information. The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable and matches the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Flatten') and resource ('all layers of the active document') and states the endpoint state ('into one'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as krita_merge_layer_down and krita_remove_layer.

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 when to use it — whenever the user wants a single combined layer — but gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative, such as merge_layer_down, fits partial merges. The operation's unique scope makes the intended usage reasonably evident.

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