Krita Set Canvas View

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Only provided fields change' – meaning null/default fields are left untouched, which is critical for an agent to know before calling. It also states that the tool returns the resulting zoom/rotation, giving the agent expectation of the response. It does not mention whether mirror/wrap_around values are also returned, but the partial return disclosure is still valuable.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and the four controllable properties; the second sentence adds the critical partial-update behavior and return value. Every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter, 0-required tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what fields do, the partial-update behavior, and the return value. It doesn't specify zoom/rotation bounds or whether mirror/wrap_around are included in the return, but the output schema likely covers the return shape. The description is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly without opening the schema.

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 does: it explains the meaning of zoom (1.0 = 100%), rotation (degrees), and names the boolean modes (mirror, wrap-around). It also explains the null semantics ('Only provided fields change'), which is essential for interpreting the anyOf/null schema. It doesn't give ranges for zoom or rotation, but the core semantics are 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 verb ('Control') and resource ('the active view's canvas'), and enumerates the exact properties it affects: zoom level, rotation degrees, mirror, and wrap-around mode. It also clarifies the zoom unit (1.0 = 100%), which distinguishes it from other Krita tools that manipulate canvas content or layers. The tool name and title are reinforced rather than merely restated.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the agent needs to change the active view's display properties (zoom, rotation, mirror, wrap-around) rather than modifying the document content. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list contains no other view-control tool, so the context is clear. A small gap: it doesn't state when NOT to use it (e.g., for resizing the actual image, use krita_resize_image).

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