Máscaras

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: 'selection' consumes the current selection, gradient direction controls where the layer is REVEALED, and clip/unclip create a clipping mask. It does not disclose the destructive/reversible nature of 'delete' and 'apply', nor any permission or side-effect context, which is a real gap for a mutation tool.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the resource and then enumerates operations compactly, which is efficient for a 12-parameter multi-op tool. It is a long sentence but nearly every clause carries distinct information about a different `type`.

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 tool with 12 parameters, nested rect/layer objects, two enums, and no output schema, the description covers the operation space but omits parameter semantics for start/end/reverse and gives no indication of return values or side effects of destructive ops. Adequate but with clear gaps given 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 25% (doc, layer, direction documented). The description partially compensates by tying radius/feather to rect/ellipse, direction to gradient, and stating density/maskFeather adjust the mask. But start, end, and reverse are never explained in either the schema or the description, leaving several parameters undocumented.

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 opens by naming the resource ('Máscaras de capa') and enumerates every operation the `type` enum supports (revealAll, hideAll, rect/ellipse, selection, gradient, delete, apply, clip/unclip), each with a brief gloss. An agent can identify this as the layer-mask tool and distinguish it from siblings like ps_selection or ps_layer_style. It lacks a single crisp verb statement, but the operation catalog makes the purpose concrete.

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?

It gives per-operation hints ('selection (usa la selección actual)', gradient direction meaning), which implies when each `type` applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, no note on clip vs unclip, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a selection must exist before 'selection'). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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