add_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key side effect: the image is physically copied into the workspace references/ directory and attached to a series or sketch. It does not say whether an existing reference with the same id is overwritten, what happens with an invalid seriesId/sketchId, or what the tool returns after the copy.

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 the core action first and the filesystem side effect second; no filler. Minor redundancy between 'Import an image as a reference' and 'Copies the image', but nothing wasteful.

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 six-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the persistence side effect but leaves out return value (reference id/path), overwrite semantics, error behavior, and whether an existing series/sketch must already exist. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, including the enum for type and the default behaviors for id and type. The description only reinforces the attachment role of seriesId/sketchId and the destination directory; it adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Import an image as a reference') plus the concrete effect (copies to references/ and attaches to a series or sketch). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as design_import_image or add_sketch_to_workspace, so an agent must infer which import path to take.

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?

'For inspiration' implies the use case (reference material rather than active design content) and the series/sketch attachment hints at the intended targets. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus design_import_image, no prerequisite that a workspace/series exist, and no guidance on whether seriesId and sketchId are mutually exclusive.

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