design_add_flow_lines

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 discloses that the tool adds a layer and produces visual effects, but it omits important traits such as persistence, undo behavior, interaction with the existing layer stack, performance implications, and any side effects for a 12-parameter mutation tool.

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 and front-loads the core operation before the stylistic outcomes. There is no filler or repetition, and every phrase contributes to identifying the tool.

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 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It explains the visual product but not operational behavior such as layer-stack effects, persistence, or defaults interaction, leaving significant context gaps beyond what the schema covers.

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 the parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds almost no extra parameter meaning beyond mentioning vector-field tracing and scale via 'thousands of streamlines'; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: it adds a flow-lines layer made of thousands of streamlines traced through a vector field. That is clear enough to identify the tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from nearby siblings such as design_add_line, design_add_path, or design_suggest_flow_path.

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 mention of engraving, topographic, and Schwere See-style effects implies the aesthetic use cases, which gives some usage signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance, so the agent must infer routing from the effect names.

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