paint_landscape_layer

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-read-only, and non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the write is one uniform 0-255 weight, it fills a rectangle rather than blending, no storage occurs unless the layer is pre-registered, and success should be judged from vertices_painted and paint_warning rather than the success flag.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, then quickly covers limitations, prerequisites, coordinate semantics, and result-checking in dense, purposeful sentences. The Returns block is justified because no output schema exists and it names exactly what the caller should inspect.

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 destructive terrain-painting action with no output schema, the definition is complete: it explains the operation, prerequisite registration, coordinate system, rectangular limitation, and the meaning of key returned fields. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly or interpret its outcome is missing.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the schema defines all four parameters. The description still adds useful meaning by clarifying that region coordinates are vertices rather than world units, that omitting region affects the whole terrain, and that layer_info_path depends on prior registration, though it does not further explain the remaining parameter details.

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: paint terrain texture layers headless, writing one uniform weight into a landscape weightmap over a vertex region. It also distinguishes scope (rectangle vs whole terrain) and names the prerequisite tool add_landscape_layer, so an agent can identify the operation immediately.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: the layer must already be registered with add_landscape_layer, region coordinates must come from get_landscape_info, and the operation is deliberately blunt rather than brush-like or blended. It also tells the agent how to build variety (paint several layers over different rectangles) and which result fields to check.

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