design_add_perspective_grid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't say that this mutates the document by adding a layer, whether it requires an open sketch, whether existing guides are affected, or what the guide looks like by default. Only the type list is conveyed, which duplicates the schema.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. It errs toward under-specification rather than verbosity, but nothing is wasted.

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 five-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: the action and options are clear, but the agent gets no behavioral context (side effects, preconditions, defaults beyond schema). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (angle, cellSize, guideColor, depthEasing, perspective) are already documented in the schema. The description's type list restates the perspective enum without adding conditional or interaction semantics (e.g., that angle/cellSize only apply to isometric). Baseline 3.

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 grid guide layer') and enumerates the supported types. It's distinguishable from nearby siblings like design_add_perspective_floor or design_add_proportion_grid, though it never explicitly names them or explains the difference.

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 use this versus the many other guide/construction tools (design_add_guide, design_add_composition_guide, design_add_perspective_floor, design_set_vanishing_point). The agent must infer applicability from the name alone.

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