import_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that a NEW paint layer is created (a document mutation), that the path must be inside the workspace, and which byte formats are accepted. It omits what happens if neither source is supplied or both are, and does not mention undo/reversibility.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then input sources, then fit modes; the parentheticals ('soft edges included - for inpainting') add real selection guidance rather than filler. Slightly dense in the fit enumeration but nothing is wasted.

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 9-parameter, zero-annotation, mutation tool with no output schema, four parameters (name, width, height, parent) go entirely undocumented and error behavior for missing sources is unstated. The image-import path itself is well covered, so it is adequate but with clear gaps.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does. It fully documents fit (all five modes with semantics) and the path/image_base64 exclusivity, and implies x/y meaning through the 'none' mode, but name, width, height, and parent are never explained.

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 and resource ('Put a raster image on a NEW paint layer') plus a constraint that separates it from siblings: 'raster' distinguishes it from add_svg, and 'path OR image_base64' distinguishes it from import_image_from_url. An agent can identify the right tool without opening the schema.

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 closing sentence gives a clear when-to-use context ('how images from an image-generation model get into Krita for further editing'), and the fit-mode list implies the inpainting use case via the 'selection' mode. No explicit when-not or named alternative, but the input-source rule (path OR base64) is a usable routing cue.

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