design_design_add_water_surface

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "Add ... layer" signals an additive, non-destructive creation, and the algorithm families give real semantic content, but nothing is said about prerequisites (open sketch/workspace), how repeat calls or preset overrides behave, or how this layer interacts with shoreline/foam/reflection layers.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the option space. The only redundancy is re-listing all 11 preset IDs, which already appear in the schema enum, though this does aid preset selection.

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 7-parameter additive layer tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and option space adequately. It is still thin on the things an agent most needs: where the layer lands in the stack, what prerequisites exist, and how it relates to the other water-layer siblings.

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 genuinely adds meaning the schema lacks: it explains the three algorithm families behind the preset enum and which scene types they target, which helps the agent pick a preset. Individual numeric/color parameters (seed, waveHeight, depthColor, etc.) are left entirely to the schema.

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 ("Add a water surface layer") and enumerates the supported algorithms and presets, so the agent knows exactly what is created. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely named siblings such as design_add_river, design_add_shore, or design_design_add_water_reflection/foam/caustics.

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?

Usage is only implied: the calm/ocean/flow mapping hints at which scene type each algorithm fits (lakes, seas, rivers), but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus design_add_river or the water-enhancement siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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