design_generate_field_from_points

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

With no annotations, the description adds some behavioral context: it discloses the interpolation method (RBF) and the return format (JSON string). However, it omits whether the tool has side effects, required permissions, or handling of invalid inputs, leaving key behavioral traits unstated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential detail about control points and return value. No superfluous 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?

Given the full schema coverage and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return value and the interpolation method. It could mention edge cases or interactions with sibling field tools, but it covers the essentials for a generation tool.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only restates that control points define direction and magnitude, adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (Generate) and resource (VectorField) and includes the method (RBF interpolation) and source (control points). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like design_add_field or design_update_paint_field, so an agent might need to infer when to use this versus those.

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 implies usage by stating the result is 'suitable for use as a painting layer's field property,' giving context. But it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites.

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