design_generate_construction_exercise

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden but says nothing about side effects: whether it mutates the current sketch, creates a new sketch, or returns data only. There is no disclosure of how the result is delivered or whether prior content is affected.

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 efficient sentence with the core action and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is perhaps over-terse for a generator with five options, but there is no wasted text.

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 a fully documented schema but no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the 'what' adequately yet omits what the generated exercise actually becomes (which sketch/document it lands in) and what the caller receives. That is a meaningful gap for a mutation-style generator, but the rich schema softens it.

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% and all five parameters are individually documented (seed, formCount, difficulty defaults, includeValues, includeIntersections). The description adds nothing beyond the schema's own fields, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 has a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('construction exercise with forms') plus scope modifiers (random, varying difficulty). This separates it well from siblings like design_add_construction_form (adds one form) or design_add_construction_scene, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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: 'random ... at varying difficulty' suggests practice/drilling, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as design_create_practice_session or design_add_construction_form. The agent must infer the routing decision.

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