design_create_desert_expanse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what layers are generated, but says nothing about whether this creates a new sketch or writes into the current document, whether existing layers are replaced, or whether presets are deterministic given the seed — significant omissions for a mutation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the component list after; nothing is wasted. The '+'-chained enumeration is dense but scannable.

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 an eight-parameter, all-optional scene builder with no annotations and no output schema, the description establishes what is produced but omits the calling context (target sketch/document) and the result of the call. Adequate to select the tool, thin for invoking it confidently.

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 eight parameters are already documented, including the atmosphericMode enum. The description's layer list maps roughly onto the per-layer *Preset parameters, adding a little semantic glue, but it provides no override or defaulting guidance beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('Create') plus a specific composite resource ('desert expanse scene') and enumerates the six layers it composes (noon sky, mesa plateau, sandstone cliff, dry scrub field, heat haze, wind erosion). An agent knows exactly what gets built, though the description never distinguishes this from sibling scene builders like design_create_landscape or design_create_mountain_valley.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. A careful agent can infer this is a one-shot composite alternative to stacking granular calls (design_add_sky, design_add_haze, design_add_cliff_face, design_add_field), but the description never says so and never names those alternatives.

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