Krita Modify Selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description explains that it modifies the current selection and lists operations, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it replace the selection? does it require a selection to exist? does it return any status?). It provides some transparency about the range of operations but lacks details on behavior beyond that.

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 that is dense and efficient, listing all supported operations and their parameter options. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Modify the current selection') and immediately enumerates the operations. However, it uses a compact syntax that may require parsing, but that is still concise.

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 the complexity of a multi-operation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return behavior, mention prerequisites (like having a selection), or describe how operations like feather or grow affect the selection in detail. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the operational context is missing.

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 lists operations and shows parameter usage (e.g., feather(radius), grow(x_radius,y_radius)) but does not explain what each parameter means semantically. For instance, it doesn't clarify the meaning of x_radius vs y_radius or the role of edge_lock, which is left to the agent's inference.

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 clearly states a specific action: modifying the current selection, and lists the available operations (invert, feather, grow, etc.). This distinguishes it from other selection tools like krita_set_selection or krita_clear_selection, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 by listing operations and their parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other selection modification alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must have an active selection) or when NOT to use it, but the operation list gives some context.

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