design_add_drop_shadow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and doesn't meet it. It doesn't say whether a new layer is created vs. an effect appended to an existing one, what layer/selection it targets, whether it is undoable, or what happens when no target is selected.

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?

One short sentence with no waste, but also no front-loaded context about the target layer or the resulting layer. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 five-parameter, zero-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It never states which layer or selection receives the shadow or what the tool returns, so an agent cannot call it confidently without guessing at targeting semantics.

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 80%, so the schema already documents blur, color, offsetX and offsetY with units, ranges and defaults. The description adds nothing to parameters. The one undocumented parameter, layerName, is left unexplained in both places, which is a small gap but consistent with a baseline 3.

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+resource: it adds a drop shadow effect layer. An agent can tell it creates a shadow layer rather than, say, sharpening or blurring the existing layer. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as design_set_text_shadow or design_apply_blur, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is for object/element shadows rather than text shadows, which is a real risk given design_set_text_shadow exists.

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