design_set_terrain_depth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Adjust' implies mutation of an existing layer, but nothing is said about whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified properties, whether the layer must already exist, or what is returned. For a mutating design operation this is a substantial gap.

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 target layer and the adjustable properties are stated immediately. It is not padded, though it could trade a few words for more accurate field naming.

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 a fully documented six-parameter schema and no output schema, the description only needs to cover mutation semantics and usage context — which it largely omits. It is minimum viable: an agent can form the call, but must rely on the schema alone for anything beyond the operation's general shape.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description's field list does not match the schema: it names 'color shift' while the schema exposes 'depthValueShift' (value shift between far and near ridges), and it collapses elevationMax/elevationMin into 'elevation range'. This introduces a mismapping rather than clarifying the parameters.

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 ('Adjust') and resource ('depth properties on a terrain profile layer') and enumerates the affected knobs, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like design_set_depth_lane or design_add_terrain_profile. It does not explicitly contrast with those close siblings, and the closing 'color shift' does not correspond to any field in the schema.

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 guidance on when to use this versus adjacent tools such as design_set_depth_lane or design_set_particle_depth, and no stated preconditions (e.g., an existing terrain profile layer must exist). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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