Krita Stroke

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, but it only states the action and pressure range. It does not mention that the stroke is applied to the active layer using the current brush/color, nor whether the operation is destructive or undoable, so an agent may call it without the needed setup or side-effect awareness.

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 one short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word contributes to the tool's meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values, but it still omits important usage context such as dependence on active layer/current brush/color and the distinction from similar drawing tools. It is adequate for a basic call but not complete for safe, correct selection among sibling Krita drawing operations.

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 description adds meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining that points are [x, y] coordinate pairs and that pressure is a 0-1 value. However, it does not define the coordinate system, minimum number of points required, or the meaning/units of pressure, so the parameter semantics are only partially clarified.

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 action, 'Paint a stroke through [x, y] points', which clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from obvious siblings like krita_fill and krita_draw_shape. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it misses the strongest form of differentiation, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 about when to use this tool over krita_draw_shape, krita_fill, or other drawing tools, and no exclusions or context are provided. The intended usage is only implied by the action word 'paint', which is not enough to guide an agent choosing among multiple painting/drawing tools.

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