design_create_forest_clearing

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect — that multiple layers (sky, treeline, overhanging branches, ferns, fog, trail) will be generated — which is the main behavioral fact an agent needs. It omits whether the scene is added to or replaces existing content, what defaults apply when presets are not supplied, and whether the result is a new sketch or a mutation of the open one, which is a meaningful gap for a mutating composite 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 no filler; the verb and the scene type come before the layer enumeration. The '+' list is dense but each element earns its place by naming a component the agent will get.

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?

Eight optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a composite tool with substantial side effects — the description should say that all parameters are optional overrides and what the call produces (a new sketch? layers on the current canvas?). None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict the result or the effect on existing work.

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% (seed, per-layer preset overrides, atmosphericMode enum), so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no extra meaning about how seed propagation or preset overrides interact with the composed layers, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Create') and a specific composite resource ('forest clearing scene') and enumerates the layers it composes, so an agent knows exactly what will be produced. It stops short of distinguishing itself from adjacent scene builders like design_create_winter_woodland or design_create_pastoral, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the layer list.

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 guidance and no named alternative. Nothing tells the agent whether to prefer this composite over assembling the same result from design_add_treeline + design_add_fog_layer + design_add_sky, nor how it differs from the other design_create_* scene tools.

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