design_create_alpine_lake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it doesn't say whether a new sketch is created or the current one is mutated, whether existing layers are replaced, whether the operation is reversible, or whether it requires an open document. The component list hints at a one-shot composite build but discloses nothing about state effects.

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 no filler; the enumerated components earn their place by specifying the scene's content. Slightly list-like and could have spent one clause on when to reach for this preset instead.

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?

Incorrectly high — recalibrating: for a 9-parameter scene builder with zero annotations and no output schema, the description omits side effects, default preset values, and interaction with the existing document. It covers what is built but not enough for an agent to call it safely.

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 schema already documents the seed, the per-layer override presets, and the atmosphericMode enum. The description's component list loosely maps onto the override params (sky, terrain, snowfield, water, reflection, cliff, haze), giving a marginal hint, but it adds no syntax, value ranges, or default behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('Create an alpine lake scene') and enumerates the exact components it composes, which is more concrete than the sibling names alone. However it never contrasts itself with the many neighbouring composite builders (design_create_landscape, design_create_mountain_valley, design_create_coastal_moonlight), so the agent must infer the distinction from the name.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (workspace/sketch context), and no pointer to alternatives. The description only says what is built, leaving the agent to guess whether this is the right entry point versus composing layers manually with design_add_sky/design_add_snowfield or using a different scene preset.

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