design_distribute_points

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says it 'returns the point array and count,' which hints at a data-producing computation, but it never states whether the tool mutates the document, requires an open sketch, is deterministic given a seed, or whether results must be committed via a preview/apply step. For a 5-parameter generation tool this leaves the agent guessing about side effects.

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, zero padding, with the action and algorithm choice front-loaded and the return shape trailing. Nothing here needs to be cut.

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?

It covers purpose and return shape, which matters given there is no output schema. However, for a tool with 12 algorithms and a free-form nested params object, the description gives no guidance on which params matter for which algorithm or any follow-up step, leaving the description thin relative to the tool's complexity.

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 width, height, seed, params, and algorithm are already documented in the schema, making baseline 3 correct. The description adds only partial algorithm enumeration (four names plus 'and more' against a 12-value enum) and repeats the return value rather than explaining the nested params object per algorithm.

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 ('generate a spatial distribution of points'), names concrete representative algorithms, and discloses the return value (point array and count). It is distinguishable from siblings like design_pack_circles or design_distribute_along_path by resource shape, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those near-neighbors.

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?

Listing the algorithm names implies the tool is used when you want a seeded/algorithmic point scatter, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as design_preview_distribution or design_pack_circles. Usage must be inferred.

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