design_create_river_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the layer composition, but not whether it creates a new sketch or mutates the current one, whether all layers are always generated or only the ones overridden by presets, or what the seed does across layers. Key behavioral facts for a scene-generating mutation are missing.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The layer list earns its place by telling the agent what the scene contains, though it partially duplicates the preset parameter names.

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 tool with eight optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description says nothing about the result (new document? layer group name?) or about how the shared seed and per-layer overrides interact. The agent cannot predict the outcome of a call from the definition.

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% and all eight parameters, including the atmosphericMode enum and its 'western' default, are documented in the schema. The description's layer enumeration loosely maps to the *Preset parameters but adds no syntax, format, or interaction details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 river scene') and enumerates the layers the scene will contain, so the agent knows what it gets. It does not differentiate itself from nearby composite creators such as design_create_landscape, design_create_park_riverside, or the granular design_add_river / design_add_shore tools.

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 at all: nothing says whether to pick this over the generic design_create_landscape or over composing the scene manually with design_add_sky, design_add_river, design_add_treeline, etc. The agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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