krita_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the execution model (native Krita command, no dialogs, acts on the active document/layer), but it does not flag that several listed commands are destructive or irreversible in effect (flatten_layer, clear_selection_pixels, trim_to_image, cut_selection_to_new_layer), nor does it mention error behavior for unknown names or whether operations land in undo history.

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 one-sentence preamble is front-loaded and the enumeration is grouped into labeled categories, so scanning is easy. Length is justified because it is the only source of the allowed command values, though the compressed alternative-syntax notation adds avoidable parsing burden.

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 two-parameter command dispatcher with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input value domain well but leaves the agent guessing on several practical points: the meaning of the optional layer argument, return content, and failure modes. It is adequate but not sufficient to invoke confidently in edge cases.

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% and the 'name' field has no enum, so the description is doing real work by supplying the entire allowed value domain, grouped by category. It falls short on the 'layer' parameter, which is never explained (whether it overrides the active layer and what 'null' means), and the pipe/underscore notation such as 'select_opaque(_add|_subtract|_intersect)' and 'rotate_layer_90_cw|90_ccw|180' must be decoded by the agent rather than listed as literal values.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Run one of Krita's own commands on the active document/layer (curated, no dialogs)', and then enumerates the exact command set by category. It never distinguishes this from overlapping siblings such as rotate_image, flip, flatten_image, view_control, fill_selection or set_selection, so an agent cannot tell which surface is authoritative for a given operation.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The word 'curated' hints that only a subset of Krita commands is exposed, but nothing tells the agent whether to prefer this tool or the dedicated sibling (for example rotate_image, flip, or view_control) for the same effect, or what to do when a command is not in the list.

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