design_create_park_riverside

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 discloses the scene composition but not whether it creates a new sketch or modifies the current one, how presets interact, what defaults apply, or what side effects or outputs to expect.

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. The scene composition is stated immediately and compactly.

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 nine-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it says what scene is produced and the schema covers parameters. It still leaves behavioral and usage context thin, especially around preset overrides and return behavior.

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 the schema already documents all nine parameters. The description lists scene components that loosely map to layers, but it adds no parameter-level detail about seed, preset overrides, or atmosphericMode 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?

States a specific verb and resource: create a park riverside scene, and enumerates the scene components. It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not differentiate itself from nearby scene-creation siblings such as design_create_river_scene or design_create_pastoral.

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?

The description only states what the tool creates. It gives no guidance on when to choose this scene over sibling scene creators, no prerequisites, and no exclusions or alternatives.

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