design_randomize_particles

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says the layer is 'random' but never explains what randomness means here – whether the seed parameter makes it reproducible, what happens if the seed is omitted, or that each call mutates the document by adding a layer. Nothing about reversibility or side effects.

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 the purpose first and the optional constraint second; no filler. The inline enum list is slightly redundant with the schema but does not crowd out the core statement.

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?

The tool is simple (3 optional params, no output schema) and the description covers what it does and the category axis. What is missing is behavioral context a no-annotation mutation tool needs: determinism via seed and the fact that a new layer is appended to the document.

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%, so category, seed and name are all documented in the schema, and the description merely repeats the category enum. It adds no meaning about seed reproducibility or what an untitled/unnamed layer defaults to, so baseline 3 is right.

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 ('Add a random particle layer') and scopes it with the optional category constraint. It never mentions the closely related sibling design_add_particles, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone whether this differs from that tool by randomness, by layer type, or not at all.

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 only guidance is 'optionally constrained by category', which is a parameter note rather than when-to-use guidance. With design_add_particles, design_set_particle_style and design_set_particle_motion also in the sibling set, the description gives no rule for choosing this randomizer over the deterministic add path.

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