design_add_haze

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 discloses the visual behavior (additive, softens without obscuring) and capabilities (directional gradients, noise modulation), but never states that it creates a new layer in the document, whether existing layers are affected, or whether the operation is reversible — meaningful gaps for an unannotated write 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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the fog comparison before capability and preset details. Minor waste: the preset names are duplicated verbatim from the schema enum, which the agent will see anyway.

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 10-parameter, all-optional tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, differentiation, and the main capability axes. It stops short of explaining how haze interacts with depthLane or atmosphericMode, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so every one of the 10 parameters is already documented with ranges, defaults, and enums. The description's parameter-adjacent content (gradient direction, noise modulation, preset list) largely restates what the schema and enum already say. Baseline 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?

A specific verb + resource ("Add a subtle atmospheric haze layer") followed by an explicit contrast with the fog-layer sibling. An agent can distinguish this from design_add_fog_layer, design_add_mist, and design_add_atmosphere without opening any schema.

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?

It states when this is the right choice versus a sibling: "Lighter and more additive than fog-layer — haze softens distant elements without fully obscuring them." That is a clear selection criterion, though it does not name the other near-neighbours (design_add_mist, design_set_mist_band) or any exclusions.

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