design_create_tropical_coast

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and doesn't disclose the essential behavior: whether it creates a new sketch/document or mutates the current one, whether it replaces existing layers or adds to them, whether it is undoable, or what it returns. It only describes the aesthetic result, not the side effects of a content-creating call.

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 the verb first and every listed element earning its place by defining the composition. The plus-sign chain is terse but readable; the only weakness is that it is a fragment with no sentence covering behavior.

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 scene-generating mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description says nothing about the target document, the effect on existing content, or the result handle. The aesthetic spec is complete but the operational contract an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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, but the description adds real value by enumerating the layer set (sky, sea, beach, sailboat, reflection, vignette, haze) that maps directly onto the *Preset override parameters, clarifying what each override controls. It does not mention 'seed' or 'atmosphericMode', so the mapping is not complete.

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 tropical coast scene') and enumerates the layers that make up the composition, so the agent knows exactly what visual output to expect. It is distinguishable from siblings like design_create_coastal_moonlight or design_create_landscape by the named components (golden-hour sky, sailboat, leaf vignette), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 guidance on when to choose this composer over the many sibling scene tools (design_create_coastal_moonlight, design_create_landscape, design_create_alpine_lake, or the manual design_add_sky / design_add_boat / design_add_haze primitives). No prerequisites, no mention of whether all nine overrides are optional in practice or what happens if one is omitted.

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