design_set_depth_lane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses domain semantics (the fixed lane vocabulary, the -1/-2/-3 sub-level convention, and that atmosphericMode is restricted to terrain:profile layers), but says nothing about overwrite behavior, what happens with an invalid lane string, or whether the layer must already be a terrain layer.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the vocabulary, then the optional mode. Every sentence contributes, though the middle sentence could be tightened into a list rather than prose.

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 a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the lane semantics well but omits confirmation/return behavior, error handling, and whether a non-terrain layer will be rejected. Those gaps are meaningful for an agent deciding whether a call will succeed.

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% and the schema already gives examples and explains the atmospheric enum values, so baseline would be 3. The description nonetheless adds real meaning the schema lacks: the complete enumerated set of lane names and the sub-level suffix rule for ordering within a lane.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Set the depth lane on any terrain layer') and the rest explains what a depth lane is, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as design_set_terrain_depth or design_set_particle_depth, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by 'on any terrain layer' and by the note that atmospheric mode only applies to terrain:profile layers, which is a partial scoping cue. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (layer must already exist), and no named alternative for setting terrain or particle depth.

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