add_mask

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add a mask to a layer' implies a write operation but doesn't specify what happens (e.g., does it modify the layer permanently, require specific permissions, or have side effects?). It lacks details about error conditions, performance characteristics, or what the tool actually returns since there's no output schema.

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 description is extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every element earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential action.

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 that performs a write operation (adding a mask) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes success/failure, what gets returned, or how this tool differs from similar mask-adding siblings. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for proper tool selection and usage is lacking.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 'Add a mask to a layer' clearly states the action (add) and target resource (mask to a layer), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_elliptical_mask' or 'add_rectangular_mask' which also add masks, leaving some ambiguity about what makes this tool distinct.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_elliptical_mask' or 'add_rectangular_mask'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or specific scenarios where this generic mask addition is preferred over specialized mask tools.

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