design_design_add_water_shoreline

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 visual effects rendered—foam lines, wave break styles, and debris—but does not explain whether adding the layer is destructive, how it interacts with existing water layers, or whether it requires an existing water surface.

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?

The description is two compact sentences, front-loading the tool's purpose before listing visual details and presets. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a creation tool.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema description coverage, the definition leaves important gaps. An agent cannot confidently determine how seed and waterlinePosition affect output, what layer behavior to expect, or how this tool relates to nearby water and shore tools.

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 only 25%, with just foamIntensity documented in the schema. The description repeats the preset enum but does not explain seed or waterlinePosition, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: add a shoreline interaction layer that renders water-land transition elements. It is specific about visual content and presets, but does not distinguish this tool from sibling shoreline or water-layer 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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It implies shoreline scenes are the target, but an agent must infer whether to use this versus design_add_shore, design_add_water_surface, or design_design_add_water_foam.

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