paint_stroke

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the paint layer is auto-created if missing (a side effect), that erase=true destructively removes prior strokes of that layer, and that clone stamp copies from everything below the layer. It omits undo/redo interaction, permissions, and return behavior, but the destructive semantics are clearly surfaced.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core stroke definition comes first, then mode-specific overrides. Every sentence adds information, with no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does solid work on behavior and the trickiest parameters but leaves several numeric/appearance parameters (opacity, hardness, layer, color) unexplained. Adequate but short of complete for this 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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies the non-obvious ones — points as [[x,y],...] in document px, erase, source, heal — but leaves size, color, layer, opacity, hardness, and project entirely undocumented, roughly half the surface.

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 — a brush/paint stroke defined by a polyline of document-px points on a paint layer — and names the operational variants (erase, clone stamp, heal). An agent can tell it apart from mask_stroke by the 'paint layer' target, though that sibling rivalry is implied rather than stated.

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 explains mode selection (erase=true, heal=true, source=...) which is effectively intra-tool usage guidance, but offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like mask_stroke, add_shape, or add_fill. Usage is implied through the parameter semantics rather than directed.

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