glitch_cmyk_split

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions shifting channels and simulating offset print errors but does not disclose side effects, destructive potential, authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavioral impact is under-specified.

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?

The description is relatively concise with a clear structure: brief intro, then Args/Returns. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly tighter, but no wasted sentences.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and many sibling glitch tools, the description is incomplete. It barely explains the effect, doesn't cover performance or combination guidelines, and the Returns section is minimal. More detail would help differentiation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains parameters (input_path, output_path, amount, angle, noise) in the Args section with defaults, but lacks detailed semantics (e.g., how angle interacts with amount). Provides baseline value but not comprehensive.

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 clearly states 'Apply CMYK split glitch effect' and explains it shifts RGB channels at 90-degree intervals to simulate registration errors, distinguishing it from sibling glitch tools like glitch_rgb_shift.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or contexts where it should be avoided. Lacks differentiation from similar glitch tools.

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