design_create_grid

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether the grid is added as a new layer, whether it is non-destructive, whether repeated calls stack or replace grids, whether an open sketch/canvas is required, or how it relates to design_clear_construction_guides.

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 wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral and routing information rather than being a model of tight completeness.

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?

A 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and several close siblings requires far more than one sentence. The description omits prerequisites, side effects, interaction with existing guides, and the meaning of the position parameters.

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 71%: gridType, width, height, showSpiral, and subdivisions are documented in the schema, but x and y have no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the undocumented position parameters remain opaque.

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 and resource ('Add a construction grid overlay to the canvas') and adds a domain cue ('identity mark design'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as design_add_proportion_grid, design_add_perspective_grid, design_add_composition_guide, or design_add_construction_form, which an agent must choose between.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'for identity mark design' hints at a context but does not tell the agent how to pick between this grid and the proportion, perspective, or composition guide tools in the same family.

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