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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive mutation. The description adds material behavioral context beyond that: it is paid (1 image), capped at 8 locations, generated immediately, and dry_run provides pricing.

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?

It is short and front-loads the paid cost and core action. The phrasing is fragmented and 'empty plate with walkable depth' is jargon, but every sentence carries some useful signal.

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 paid generative mutation with no output schema, it covers cost, a hard cap, immediate generation, dry_run pricing, and exterior use. However, with 6 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no alternative-to-set_location guidance, it remains incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains dry_run and indirectly touches setting through 'Outside places'. Required parameters such as series_id, name, description, and time are not given added meaning.

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 gives a specific verb and resource, 'Add a location', plus constraints (next index, 8 at most) and the generated output (an empty plate with walkable depth, made now). It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling set_location, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage through 'Outside places make street and rooftop scenes possible' and notes that dry_run prices the operation, but it does not state when to use this instead of set_location or add_character. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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