design_add_fog_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the occlusion semantics ('cover elements behind them') and render behavior (noise-modulated horizontal band, soft edges, wisps), but says nothing about whether the layer is non-destructive/reversible, where it is inserted in the layer stack, or what is returned.

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 purpose and the key differentiator (occluding vs additive) in the first two sentences. The trailing preset list duplicates the enum already in the schema, a minor redundancy, but overall it is tight and readable.

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 explains visual intent but omits return value, layer placement, and how preset interacts with the many numeric overrides. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent building a composition.

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 100% and all 12 parameters carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the preset enum values, adding no range, default, or interaction semantics (e.g., preset vs fogType precedence) beyond the schema.

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 an occluding fog layer') plus the visual intent (depth separation, shan-shui three distances), and explicitly contrasts with mist particles. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling design_add_fog, leaving the closest ambiguity unresolved.

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 contrast with additive mist particles implies when to pick this over mist, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus design_add_fog, design_add_haze, design_set_mist_band, or design_add_particles, which are the real alternatives an agent would weigh.

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