design_add_cross_contours

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It says lines are 'added' but never states whether the outline/axis inputs are mutated, whether a new layer is created, whether existing contours are replaced, or what the result contains — significant gaps for a mutation-style tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing behavioral detail.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should cover side effects, what artifact is produced, and how it interacts with the supplied outline. None of that is present, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool that consumes and potentially alters user geometry.

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%, including count range and defaults, the style enum, and the curvature scale, so the schema already does the explanatory work. The description only echoes the outline and axis inputs and adds no format or coordinate guidance beyond that baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (add cross-contour lines) and the two inputs it consumes (outline + axis path), plus the design purpose (revealing surface direction). It stops short of distinguishing itself from nearby siblings like design_trace_contours or design_add_flow_lines, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 phrase 'on any organic shape' implies the applicable context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer that this belongs to the construction/contour workflow rather than the tracing tools.

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