design_blend_shapes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes the visual result (interpolation, color transitions, morphing, glows) but does not disclose side effects, layer placement, whether it mutates the current document, or other operational behavior expected from a 30-parameter creation tool.

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 with no filler. The parenthetical examples add useful visual context without becoming verbose.

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 complex 30-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the description leaves out usage context, behavioral side effects, and what the resulting layer/output entails.

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 input schema already documents all 30 parameters. The description adds only high-level context about spine interpolation and visual effects, but does not provide additional parameter semantics 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: "Create a shape blend layer," then clarifies it is two shapes interpolated along a spine. It clearly identifies the operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like design_update_blend or design_add_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 description states what the tool creates but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as design_set_blend, design_add_shape, or design_update_blend. It also does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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