design_add_noise_texture

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: not whether it creates a new layer or writes into an existing layer at the given stack index, not whether it requires an open sketch, not whether the operation is reversible. The word 'add' implies mutation, but nothing about permissions, side effects, or defaults (all 8 parameters are optional, so it runs with no arguments) is surfaced.

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 the resource and its variants in the first clause and nothing redundant. It is appropriately sized for what it attempts to convey.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it omits layer-stack semantics (index), the fact that every parameter defaults so a bare call is valid, and how the result relates to existing layers. Return behavior is not described either, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 ranges, defaults, and the type enum are already documented; the description's mention of value/fractal/ridged merely repeats the enum. Baseline 3 applies — the description adds no syntax, unit, or interaction detail 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?

Names a specific verb and resource (add a procedural noise texture layer) and enumerates the three noise types, which separates it from the many other design_add_*_texture siblings. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from paper/canvas/washi texture tools, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. Given a sibling list containing a dozen other texture-adding tools, an agent gets no help deciding between noise and paper, canvas, washi, linen, or concrete textures.

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