design_import_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses only that a composite:image layer is created. It says nothing about whether the layer is added to the active layer/group, how sizing behaves without width/height, what happens on unsupported MIME types or oversized payloads, or whether the operation is undoable.

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 tight sentence with zero padding and the key fact front-loaded. It is efficient, but one flat clause means nothing is structured for scanning.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is far short of what an agent needs. Nothing explains placement coordinates, resizing semantics, opacity/blend mode effects, or what the tool returns (layer id? asset id?).

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 only 36% across 11 parameters; data and mimeType are documented in the schema and merely echoed here. The undocumented x, y, width, height, opacity, blendMode, and layerName parameters get no explanation, so it is unclear whether x/y place the layer or size its bounds.

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 (import) and resource (base64-encoded image) plus the concrete effect: creating a composite:image layer. An agent can distinguish this from generic layer tools like design_add_layer, though the description never names a sibling outright.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus design_add_layer, design_paint_layer, design_place_symbol, or design_add_component. There are no preconditions or exclusions given, so the agent must infer the selection criteria from the sibling list alone.

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