design_create_coastal_moonlight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It lists the visual components created but does not say whether it creates a new sketch, adds layers to the current document, replaces existing work, or requires specific presets. For a multi-layer creation tool, that is a significant behavioral 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list of scene layers. It is compact and wastes no words.

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 composite scene tool with eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It explains what the resulting scene includes but not how the tool interacts with the document, how presets are applied, or how to choose it over the many sibling scene creators.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description loosely maps its listed elements to preset parameters (e.g. moon to celestialPreset, rocky shore to shorePreset), but adds no format, default, or override behavior 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a moonlit coastal scene') and enumerates the compositional elements, so an agent knows exactly what this composite scene builder produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from neighboring scene creators such as design_create_tropical_coast or design_create_river_scene, which keeps it from a 5.

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 preset scene builder versus alternatives like design_create_landscape or building a coast manually with design_add_shore/design_add_reflection. The intent is only implied by the tool name and the scene description.

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