Preview seeded decoration scatter

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by detailing the internal deterministic algorithm (stateless coordinate hash, salted hash, no Math.random), explains skipOccupied and null choice behavior, and notes that a match failure fails closed. This adds significant behavioral context not captured in readOnlyHint=true.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences, each packed with necessary information. It is front-loaded with the action and algorithm, then covers edge cases and return value. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and many siblings, the description covers the core behavior well and mentions the return type (mapEdit change set). However, it does not explain what 'fails closed' means precisely or how this tool fits among other preview tools. The presence of an output schema partially reduces the need for return-value details, but a bit more context would help.

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?

Given schema description coverage is only 22%, the description should elaborate on parameter meanings but only mentions 'mapPath', 'layerId', 'region', 'seed', 'density', 'choices' in passing without detailing their roles, constraints, or interactions. It does not compensate for the sparse schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Scatters decoration tiles over one bounded region' with a deterministic algorithm. It uses a specific verb ('preview') and resource ('decoration tiles') and distinguishes from siblings by highlighting the deterministic density roll and hash-based selection, which is unique among the many preview tools.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: for deterministic scatter patterns with seed-controlled randomness. It explains key features like translation-stability and skipOccupied, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like tiled_preview_edits or tiled_preview_generate, nor state when not to use it.

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