design_create_mountain_valley

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it doesn't say whether layers are added to the current sketch or a new one is created, whether existing content is affected, or how the 'override preset' options interact with built-in defaults. Only the additive layer list hints at behavior.

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 zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 8-parameter composite generator with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits what the call returns, where the layers land, and any defaults or side effects. The schema alone cannot fill those gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a small amount of meaning by mapping the enumerated scene parts (sky, ridges, fog, treeline, field, haze) to the per-layer preset parameters, but seed and atmosphericMode are unaddressed beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Create a mountain valley scene') and enumerates the exact layers produced, so an agent knows precisely what it builds. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely related composite-scene siblings such as design_create_landscape, design_create_alpine_lake, or design_create_forest_clearing, leaving the agent to guess which composite to pick.

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 guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the many other scene-creator tools. The agent must infer that this is the alpine/valley variant purely from the name.

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