suggest_shade_regions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so well: it declares non-write behavior, explains the input heuristic (design-layer alpha vs body-part geometry), and lists the exact fields returned. The only notable gap is that the purpose of the output_dir parameter is not disclosed; it may write files, but the description only says it doesn't write pixels.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose and non-writing guarantee appear first, followed by algorithmic context, return shape, and workflow placement. Every sentence adds useful information without redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

The workflow context and output shape are well covered, but the description is not sufficient for correct invocation because all three parameters are undocumented. An agent would likely know why to call this tool but not precisely how to fill name, band_height, and output_dir, which is a significant gap given the absence of annotation support.

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% and the description does not compensate: it never explains name, output_dir, or band_height. The terms 'band hints' and 'band_height' are loosely related, but there is no explicit parameter-level documentation, leaving the agent to guess what value each argument should take.

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 uses a specific verb ('Propose') with a specific resource ('underside / far-limb shade band hints') and immediately clarifies that it does NOT write pixels, which distinguishes it from painting tools. It also names the structured output (layer, bbox, sample_pixels, reason) and positions itself relative to sibling plan_shading, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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 explicitly places the tool in a workflow: it is an optional helper before plan_shading, and its results are filtered by the agent before painting with MCP tools. It clearly implies when to use it, but does not state hard exclusion criteria beyond 'does NOT write pixels', so it falls just short of a full when/when-not prescription.

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