Rellenar píxeles

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the fill destroys existing layer content, whether it respects/affects selection state, whether it requires an active document, or what happens with overrides between color/gradient/contentAware. For a mutating raster operation this is a significant gap.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence, no waste. Sized appropriately, though brevity here contributes to the parameter/behavior gaps rather than compensating for them.

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?

A 9-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage. The description omits mutual exclusivity of fill modes, defaults, layer/doc targeting, and behavioral effects — inadequate for the complexity.

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 only 33%, and 9 parameters exist. The description only mentions color, gradient, and contentAware concept presence, but does not explain opacity, preserveTransparency, to/from, or that color vs gradient vs contentAware are mutually exclusive modes. It doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (rellena) and the resource/scope (la selección o toda la capa) plus the three fill modes. Clear what it does, though it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like ps_filter or ps_mask beyond the fill domain.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of which fill mode to pick under what conditions, no prerequisites. The agent must infer everything about tool selection and invocation context.

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