design_set_particle_depth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and it says nothing about what happens to unset depth properties, whether the change is reversible, whether the layer must already be a particle layer, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap. It also omits that depthBandMin/Max apply only to floating layers while depthDistribution applies only to falling layers, a constraint buried in the schema properties.

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 verb and target first and the affected properties listed after; zero waste. It is arguably too terse for a six-parameter mutation, but nothing in it is padding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose but leaves out prerequisites, side effects, and the mutually exclusive applicability of the band vs distribution parameters. An agent could call it correctly thanks to the rich schema, but the description adds little to that safety net.

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% and two parameters carry enums with documented values, so the schema already fully documents every parameter. The description merely restates the parameter names (horizonY, depthEasing, depthDistribution, depthBandMin/Max) without adding ranges, defaults, or the floating/falling layer distinction. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb (Configure) and resource (depth properties on a particle layer) and enumerates the affected properties, so the agent knows exactly what it changes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like design_set_particle_motion or design_set_particle_style, but the word 'depth' plus the property list makes the boundary reasonably clear.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus design_set_particle_motion, design_set_particle_style, or design_set_depth_lane, and no prerequisites (an existing particle layer is implied only by the required layerId). The agent must infer the call context entirely from the property names.

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