design_add_paper_texture

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the layer-ordering behavior (insert beneath painting layers) which an agent would not otherwise know. But it says nothing about whether an active document/selection is required, whether it mutates existing layers, or what happens on repeated invocation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and zero filler. Minor waste: the preset list duplicates the enum already present in the schema.

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 six-parameter, all-optional mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers identity and stack placement but leaves gaps around preconditions (active document) and effect on the existing layer stack. Adequate to call, not fully self-sufficient.

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%, with each of the six parameters documented including defaults and enum values, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats the preset enum values already in the schema and adds no semantics for `seed`, `color`, `opacity`, `roughness`, or the interaction between `index` and its 'bottom of stack' claim.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Add a watercolor paper texture layer') plus the enumerated surface presets, which pins down the visual role. It is distinguishable from the many other texture siblings (linen, washi, parchment, concrete) by the 'watercolor paper' framing, though it never names those siblings or states the distinction explicitly.

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 second sentence gives placement guidance ('bottom of the stack under painting layers'), which is a real usage cue. However, with six sibling `design_add_*_texture` tools available, there is no explicit statement of when to pick paper vs. canvas/linen/washi, and no exclusion or prerequisite information.

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