design_add_atmosphere

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It establishes that this is an additive layer creation (non-destructive, implies undoability) and that it operates depth-aware on the layer stack, which is useful. It does not state whether the layer can be modified later via design_update_layer, what the layer is attached to, or any preconditions, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a mutation.

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?

Three tight sentences ordered purpose → effects → placement → presets, with the core action front-loaded. The preset enumeration mildly duplicates the schema enum, which is the only wasted token.

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?

All five parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, and no output schema exists, so the description need not explain returns. What remains thin is the relationship to sibling atmosphere and haze tools, but for a parameterless-required layer-creation call the definition is largely sufficient.

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 100% with defaults and ranges documented for every property, including the enum of presets. The description only restates the preset names that already appear in the enum and gives no additional semantics for colorTemp, horizonPosition, or atmosphereColor. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource (add an atmospheric-perspective post-process layer) and enumerates the effects it applies: depth-aware value compression, saturation reduction, color temperature shift. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as design_add_haze, design_add_fog_layer, or design_create_atmosphere, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone which atmosphere tool to choose.

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?

'Place near the top of the layer stack' gives real placement guidance, and the preset list hints at intended looks. But there is no statement of when this tool is appropriate versus the many overlapping siblings (design_add_haze, design_add_fog, design_set_atmosphere_lighting), nor any exclusion criteria.

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