design_create_japanese_garden

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scene's layer composition, but does not state whether it creates a new sketch/document or modifies the current one, how defaults are applied, or what the return behavior is.

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 zero filler. The action and resulting scene are communicated immediately.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It tells the agent what scene will be built, but leaves important invocation context unstated, such as side effects and how optional preset overrides interact with the default composition.

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 parameter meanings are already documented in the schema. The description lists scene components that loosely correspond to preset parameters, but adds no detail about seed behavior, override semantics, or the atmosphericMode enum 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Japanese garden scene,' then enumerates the scene components. This clearly identifies the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with generic scene creators like design_create_garden or with layer-by-layer alternatives.

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 tool versus the many sibling scene creators or the individual design_add_* layer tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the listed composition.

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