design_apply_dither

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. Saying it "Add[s] a ... filter layer" usefully signals that a new layer is created rather than the underlying pixels being rewritten, but nothing is said about which layer it targets, ordering/reorder implications, reversibility, or whether a selection is required.

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. It is appropriately sized for a small effect tool, though the parenthetical method list is essentially redundant with the enum in the schema.

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 four-optional-parameter filter with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does but not the context needed for correct invocation: target layer, where the new layer lands, or what the caller receives. 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (method, levels, intensity, seed) are already documented with ranges and defaults in the schema. The description only echoes the method enum values and adds no syntax or interaction detail (e.g., that seed is ignored for non-random methods).

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Add a dither filter layer") and names the concrete algorithm families available, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent filter siblings such as design_apply_halftone, design_apply_threshold, or design_apply_posterize, which share a near-identical shape.

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 text contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tool. An agent cannot tell from the description whether dithering should precede or replace threshold/posterize/halftone calls.

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