design_set_pattern_shading

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 says the tool sets shading, implying mutation, but does not disclose whether existing shading is replaced, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response contains.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence efficiently summarizes the shading-function categories without redundant detail.

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 schema is rich and fully described, and the description establishes the tool's purpose and shading categories. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it omits behavioral context such as replacement semantics, prerequisites, and side effects.

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%, so the schema already documents layerId, affects, and shading. The description adds only a high-level summary of shading functions and the affected properties, without additional syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 description states a specific verb+resource: 'Set value-based shading on a patterns:fill layer.' It clearly distinguishes the operation from generic pattern creation or tiling, but does not explicitly differentiate it from nearby pattern siblings such as design_set_pattern_region or design_update_pattern.

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 description provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternatives. An agent must infer from context that this tool is for spatial shading on an existing patterns:fill layer rather than for defining the pattern or its region.

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