design_preview_distribution

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the operation is non-destructive and it creates a guide layer. But it is silent on whether repeated calls stack preview layers, whether an existing preview is replaced, whether the underlying layer is modified, or what algorithm choices mean.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key noun and the non-destructive trait appear early. Slightly awkward phrasing ('add a distribution:preview guide layer') but nothing is wasted.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and eight undocumented parameters including a nested object, the description is far too thin for the tool's complexity. An agent can guess the general intent but cannot construct a correct call from this alone.

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 0% across 8 parameters, one of which is a free-form nested 'params' object, and the description explains none of them. Nothing tells the agent what values 'algorithm' accepts, what belongs in 'params', or how width/height/dotSize/dotColor/seed behave.

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 distribution and add a 'distribution:preview' guide layer. The word 'preview' plus 'non-destructively' sketches how it differs from a committed distribution, but it never names design_distribute_points or design_clear_distribution_preview, so the sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

'non-destructively' implies a preview-before-commit workflow, which is a real usage signal. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over design_distribute_points, nor any note about when or how to clear the preview layer with design_clear_distribution_preview.

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