design_add_gradient

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 implies a mutation by saying 'Add', but it does not disclose layer insertion behavior, whether it replaces existing content, permissions, or how the new layer interacts with other fills.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though the content is under-specified.

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?

This is a complex 12-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description gives only the basic purpose and gradient variants, leaving behavior and most parameter semantics unaddressed.

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 low at 42%, so the description should explain parameters more fully. It repeats the type enum values already present in the schema and adds no meaning for coordinates, dimensions, opacity, blend mode, or the required stops array.

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: adding a gradient fill layer. It also enumerates the gradient types, so the agent can distinguish this from non-gradient fill tools. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as design_add_solid or design_apply_gradient_map.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is the implied action of adding a gradient fill layer.

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