design_add_terrain_profile

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose real behavior — presets, back-to-front layered noise ridges, depth-aware coloring — but says nothing about whether a new layer is created, whether the operation is reversible, or what the result looks like in the layer stack.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the preset list and rendering behavior. The preset enumeration duplicates the schema enum, which is the only wasted space.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover more: all 8 parameters are optional, so it is unclear what defaults produce, and it never explains what the tool returns or how it interacts with the existing layer stack. Adequate for calling the tool, thin for predicting its effect.

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 every parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description restates the preset enum and gestures at depth-aware coloring (relevant to atmosphericMode and depthLane) but adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 plus resource: 'Add terrain ridgeline silhouettes to the sketch,' with rendering detail (layered noise ridges, depth-aware coloring). It clearly separates itself from nearby siblings such as design_add_rock or design_add_treeline by being the ridge-silhouette generator, though it never names a sibling 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?

Usage is only implied by the imperative 'Add ... to the sketch'; there is no statement of when to reach for this over design_add_rock, design_add_cliff_face, or the composite design_create_landscape tools. The sibling design_list_terrain_presets, which would help an agent choose a preset, is not referenced.

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