design_add_washi_texture

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 a texture layer is added with visible fibers, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires a specific layer context, how it interacts with existing layers, or what the result looks like beyond the texture itself.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that identifies the action and the key visual characteristic without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 layer-adding tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no usage context, it leaves gaps in behavioral expectations and alternative choices that would help an agent invoke it correctly.

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?

All six parameters have schema descriptions with defaults and ranges (e.g., fiberLength 20–200, fiberDensity 0–1), giving 100% coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (Add) and resource (Japanese washi rice paper texture layer) with a distinctive visual trait (visible fibers). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar texture-adding siblings like design_add_paper_texture or design_add_linen_texture.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as design_add_paper_texture or design_add_canvas_texture, nor any mention of preconditions or exclusions. The agent must infer usage 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.