design_create_landscape

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 usefully discloses auto-assigned layer order, automatic depth lanes, atmospheric perspective behavior, and that it returns created layer IDs. It does not state whether it modifies the active sketch, how it interacts with existing layers, whether creation is reversible, or what permissions or failure modes are involved.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and component list. Each sentence contributes distinct information: composition order, depth-lane behavior, atmospheric mode effect, and return value. There is no filler.

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 six-parameter composite creation tool with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description covers creation scope, layer ordering, depth behavior, atmospheric mode, and return value. It leaves out how this interacts with the current document or existing layers, which is relevant context for an agent invoking a create operation.

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 a baseline of 3 would be acceptable. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that atmosphericMode applies automatic atmospheric perspective to terrain ridges and by clarifying that clouds and water layers are optional, which goes beyond the enum labels.

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') and resource ('complete landscape scene') and enumerates the constituent layers plus layer-order behavior. It distinguishes the composite action from individual layer-adding siblings by emphasizing 'complete landscape scene', though it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling composite scene creators such as 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?

Usage is implied by 'complete landscape scene' and the optional cloud/water notes, giving enough context to infer this is for one-call scene assembly. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of the individual design_add_sky/design_add_terrain_profile/design_add_water_surface tools or the other scene-creation siblings, nor when not to use it.

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