Krita Set Brush

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a state change ('set') and provides constraints (partial name, px, 0-1 range), but does not explain side effects, persistence, whether a document must be open, or how it interacts with subsequent strokes or drawing tools. The description is too terse to be transparent about behavior.

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 fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the parenthetical efficiently packs parameter semantics. It earns every word and is appropriately sized for a simple setter 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?

The tool is simple, and an output schema exists, so return values are not a concern. However, with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It lacks when-to-use guidance, side effects, and any mention of the tool's role in the Krita workflow, leaving an agent without enough information to use it correctly in context.

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 adds meaning to all three parameters: preset is a partial name (implying fuzzy matching), size is in pixels, and opacity is a 0-1 number. This directly clarifies the input schema. It does not mention optionality, but the schema already provides default null values, so that is covered.

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 action ('Set brush preset and properties') with the key properties enumerated in parentheses. It clearly identifies the resource (brush) and the operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like krita_list_brushes or krita_set_color. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrasting alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., active document), and no context about its role in a drawing workflow. The parenthetical gives parameter hints but not usage context. The only implied usage is 'before drawing,' but that is not stated.

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