design_add_pattern

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 that creates a layer, but it does not describe permissions, reversibility, default behavior when type is omitted, or what is returned. It also says to 'specify a layer type' even though the schema marks all parameters as optional, which is a behavioral inconsistency.

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 front-loaded with the core action, which is good. However, the full nine-item layer-type list duplicates the schema enum and adds length without much additional value.

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 six-parameter layer-creation tool with a nested properties object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the basic action but leaves out sibling routing, behavioral defaults, required/optional expectations, and return behavior, so it is not complete enough for reliable agent use.

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 the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly. However, the description's phrasing 'either a preset name or manual properties' can mislead, because the schema allows both to be supplied together, with manual properties overriding preset values.

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: add a pattern layer to the sketch, and it enumerates the supported pattern layer types. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this from closely named siblings such as design_create_pattern, design_update_pattern, or design_tile_pattern.

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 description explains how to call the tool by specifying a type and either a preset or manual properties, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related pattern tools. There are many pattern-related siblings, and none are mentioned or ruled out.

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