design_add_value_study

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 says what visual elements appear but nothing about whether this creates a new layer, whether it is destructive or reversible, what happens if 'forms' is omitted, or how it interacts with existing layers. For a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 zero filler; the artifact is named first and its parts follow. It is efficient, though for a tool with no annotations and five parameters it could afford one more sentence of operational context without becoming bloated.

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 compensate by explaining layer placement, prerequisites, and side effects. It covers the visual output adequately but leaves the agent guessing about what gets added to the document and what it returns.

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 defaults, ranges and the enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds a light mapping by naming 'terminator' and 'value zones', which correspond to showTerminator and valueGrouping, but supplies no additional semantics such as how azimuth relates to the described shadow direction.

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 ('Add') and a specific resource ('light/shadow value study overlay') and enumerates its visual components (terminator, cast shadow, value zones), so the agent knows exactly what artifact is produced. It does not, however, distinguish itself from related siblings such as design_trace_values or design_add_construction_form, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for a similar outcome. The only usage signal is implicit in the word 'overlay', leaving the agent to infer the context 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.