krita_set_selectionScope edits to a chosen region by setting a rectangular selection or selecting the entire canvas in Krita.
Set the global selection to a rectangle, or the whole canvas (all=True).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| all | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the all=True mode and the rectangle option, but omits crucial details: whether it replaces the existing selection, how coordinates are interpreted (origin, units), what happens to x/y/width/height when all=True, and any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, tight sentence that front-loads the action and the key mode distinction. There is no wasted wording, and the structure effectively communicates the two ways to invoke the 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 five parameters, zero required fields, no annotations, and an output schema that is not shown, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not cover coordinate system, units, behavior of all=True with other parameters, or the effect on existing selections. An agent could not safely call this tool correctly without additional information.
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 for all five parameters. It only hints at the role of all=True and implies x, y, width, height define a rectangle, but does not explain their individual meanings, defaults, bounds, or interactions. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema names and leaves the agent guessing about parameter semantics.
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 clear verb ('set') and specific resource ('global selection') with two modes: rectangle or whole canvas via all=True. This distinguishes it from read tools like krita_get_selection and clear tools like krita_clear_selection, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from the closely related krita_modify_selection sibling, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like krita_modify_selection or krita_clear_selection. The description merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without any explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.