design_add_linen_texture

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 an additive write (a new layer), but says nothing about whether an existing layer is created or modified, what 'stack position' does to existing layers, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero redundant text. It is lean, though that leanness is partly under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-annotation generation tool, the description omits layer-creation semantics, defaults behavior, and how it interacts with existing layers. The fully-described schema offsets some of this, but key behavioral context is still 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 description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 8 parameters (seed, color, opacity, warpWeight, weftWeight, irregularity, threadSpacing, index) is already documented. The description adds only a loose hint that warp/weft weights relate to 'regular thread structure'; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Add') and a specific resource ('fine linen/fabric weave texture layer') plus the visual characteristic ('regular thread structure'). However, it never distinguishes itself from the many sibling texture tools (design_add_paper_texture, design_add_canvas_texture, design_add_washi_texture, design_add_noise_texture).

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 choose linen weave over the other texture-layer siblings, nor any stated prerequisites (does a sketch/layer need to exist first?). The agent must infer selection purely from the adjective 'linen'.

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