design_add_cliff_face

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose that the tool renders a textured silhouette with ledge shadows, plus the available texture/preset variants. It omits key behavior: that this appends a new layer to the stack, where it lands in z-order, whether it can be removed, and any document/prerequisite requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and four short sentences with no filler. The trailing preset list is somewhat redundant with the schema enum but is not enough to hurt readability.

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 an 11-parameter creative tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and variants but leaves out defaults already in schema (depthLane, preset) and any mention of layer-stack effects or prerequisites. 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's enumeration of texture modes and presets simply restates the enum values already in the schema, adding no format, range, or interaction guidance (e.g., how preset and textureMode combine or override each other).

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a vertical cliff face/rock wall layer.' That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like design_add_rock or design_add_terrain_profile. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the resource itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. An agent must infer that this belongs in landscape composition work rather than using the related rock/terrain tools. 'Supports 4 texture modes' and the preset list describe capability, not selection criteria.

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