design_generate_figure_from_description

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add one genuinely useful disclosure — 'Uses template matching with pose presets' — telling the agent output is snapped to existing presets rather than synthesized arbitrarily. However, it says nothing about whether a figure/layer is created on the canvas, what the return value is, or what happens when no preset matches.

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 action and the result, and the examples are compact and illustrative rather than padding. Nothing to trim.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should say more about what is produced and where it lands (a new keypoint layer? a selection?). The mention of template matching partly covers the 'how', but the effect on the document is left implicit.

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 all three params including the method and proportionSystem enums are already documented with defaults. The description adds input flavor for the description parameter but nothing about method or proportionSystem; baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Generate mannequin keypoints from a text description', with two concrete input examples. It is distinguishable from siblings like design_add_figure_mannequin or design_set_figure_pose by the text-driven input, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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 examples ('standing with arms raised', 'seated cross-legged') imply what kind of input to send, which is implied usage guidance. But there is no statement of when to choose this over design_add_figure_mannequin, design_set_figure_pose or design_randomize_pose, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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