fusion_new_design

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It discloses important traits: the design is separate and unsaved, and the default mode requires no active document. However, it omits side effects on any current design, persistence expectations, and the role of the required operation_id.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The primary function is front-loaded, and the document-context condition is stated immediately after. Every sentence adds information.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: the required operation_id is entirely unexplained, and name is ignored. An agent would need extra reasoning or external knowledge to invoke this correctly, especially for the required parameter.

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 for all parameters. It explains expected_document_id ('current document ID' and default requirement) but says nothing about the required operation_id or the name parameter, leaving the most important required parameter unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('separate unsaved design'), which clearly conveys the tool's core function. It is distinguishable from siblings like fusion_create_sketch or fusion_create_feature because it targets a new design document rather than a feature within one. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it misses a top score.

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?

Provides clear context for the two invocation scenarios: supply the current document ID if one is open, otherwise rely on the default which requires no open active document. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the guidance is enough for a straightforward creation action.

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