design_add_proportion_grid

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Add' signals a mutation and the sentence describes the created content, but it does not disclose whether this creates a layer or guide, whether it affects existing artwork, whether it is reversible, or what permissions/state changes are involved.

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 no filler. The purpose and key visual contents are stated immediately, and every phrase contributes meaning.

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 simple four-parameter add operation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description gives enough to know what is created and that it can be invoked with defaults. However, with no annotations, it leaves out behavioral details and usage context that would help an agent invoke it confidently.

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 all four optional parameters and their defaults. The description adds little beyond the schema, mentioning landmark labels but not the system enum, label toggles, or width guides; a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 proportion grid,' plus the grid contents ('head-height divisions and anatomical landmark labels'). It is clearly distinct from most siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related figure/proportion guide tools such as design_add_head_construction or design_add_figure_landmarks.

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 says what the tool adds but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent must infer that it is for proportion or figure setup rather than receiving explicit routing guidance.

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