design_create_shan_shui

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the composition it produces (which layer types get created, in ink-wash-adjacent style), which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about whether this creates a new sketch or mutates the current one, what happens to existing layers, or how defaults are chosen.

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 preamble. It is slightly redundant, since 'misty sky', 'mountain mist', and 'haze' describe overlapping atmospheric elements, but it stays short and readable.

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 eight-parameter, all-optional composition tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the visual outcome but omits defaults, whether an existing sketch is required or targeted, and what is returned. It is adequate to attempt a call but not complete.

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 all eight parameters including the atmosphericMode enum are documented in the schema. The description's layer list loosely maps to the fog/sky/haze/rock/water/terrain preset params but adds no format or override-precedence detail beyond what the schema states.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Create') with a well-defined resource ('Chinese shan-shui landscape') and enumerates the constituent layers (misty sky, peaks, mist, rock, calm water, haze). This is clearly distinguishable from design_create_landscape or design_create_japanese_garden by style, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 statement of when to use this versus the many sibling scene builders (design_create_landscape, design_create_river_scene, design_create_alpine_lake) or versus composing layers manually with design_add_sky/design_add_fog_layer. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the listed ingredients.

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