design_add_bristle_stroke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it adds a layer, but does not disclose whether it modifies the active sketch, creates a new layer at the top, is undoable, or what it returns. The effect is described, but operational side effects and prerequisites remain unclear.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the visual effect. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema details.

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 schema is very rich and documents all parameters, which reduces the description's burden. However, for a complex 22-parameter generative tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal and leaves gaps around layer behavior, output, and sibling selection.

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%, so all 22 parameters, defaults, enums, and ranges are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the high-level idea of following a vector field and does not elaborate on parameter interactions or practical settings beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: adding a bristle-stroke layer, and specifies oil-paint long strokes following a vector field. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as design_brush_stroke, design_add_bristle_dab, or design_paint_layer.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for brush strokes, bristle dabs, paint layers, and flow lines, the agent is left to infer the selection criteria from the name alone.

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