design_add_figure_mannequin

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that a layer is created, but says nothing about where the layer is inserted, whether it is destructive to existing layers, how keypoints interact with the pose preset, or what the tool returns. Only the surface behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The method and pose lists are slightly redundant with the schema enums, but they are compact and scannable.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the common path but omits two of the four parameters and any notion of resulting state (new layer position, defaults ordering). Adequate to invoke, thin on consequences.

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% and both enums are fully documented in the schema, so the description's enumeration of methods and poses is redundant rather than additive. It adds no meaning for the keypoints or proportionSystem parameters, which are the least self-explanatory ones.

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 and resource: 'Add a figure mannequin layer', which is distinct from siblings like design_add_pose_skeleton or design_set_figure_pose. It never explicitly contrasts with those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the core action 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?

No statement of when to use this versus design_add_pose_skeleton, design_set_figure_pose, or design_add_figure_landmarks. The parenthetical 'Optional preset pose' hints that everything is optional, but there is no when/when-not guidance or exclusion.

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