design_add_perspective_floor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context that the result is a real shape layer and appears in exports, but it omits editability, layer stacking, and interaction with existing perspective guides or vanishing points.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and a useful parenthetical about export inclusion. No filler, though the parenthetical is slightly terse in a way that leaves 'included in exports' to be interpreted.

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?

A low-risk, zero-required-parameter creation tool with no output schema, so little is strictly needed. Still, without annotations the description should say whether the layer is editable/removable and how it relates to the perspective grid and vanishing points it conceptually pairs with.

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% and every parameter (depthEasing, strokeColor, strokeWidth, horizonPosition) has its own documented default. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the 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 and resource ('Add a perspective floor plane') and clarifies that it creates a shape layer rather than a guide. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling design_add_perspective_grid, but the resource noun is specific enough for an agent to identify the action.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer a floor plane over design_add_perspective_grid, and no mention of prerequisites such as setting a vanishing point or camera first. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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