design_design_set_water_conditions

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the concrete composition each condition produces (e.g., stormy = stormy-ocean + dark-water-reflection + storm-foam), which is real behavioral content. However, it never states whether existing water layers are replaced or appended, whether the operation is idempotent, or any side effects of creating a "complete scene" — a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the composition, then the condition table. Every clause carries information; zero filler.

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 four-parameter, annotation-free scene-creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the what and the condition semantics but omits return behavior and the append-vs-replace question. Adequate but leaves an agent guessing about the resulting layer state.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's bare "Water conditions" label by enumerating all four enum values and mapping each to the layers it generates, which materially helps the agent choose a value. It adds nothing for seed or waterlinePosition beyond what the schema already says.

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?

"Set coordinated water conditions across multiple water layers" gives a specific verb and resource, and "Creates a complete water scene with surface + reflection + optional foam/shoreline" distinguishes it from the single-layer siblings like design_add_water_surface or design_add_water_reflection. An agent can tell this is a composite scene builder versus an atomic layer adder without opening any schema.

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 phrase "coordinated ... across multiple water layers" and "complete water scene" implies when to reach for this over the individual add_water_* tools, but it never says so explicitly and names no alternatives. There is no when-not guidance (e.g., whether to use this when layers already exist).

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