glitch_rgb_shift

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the visual behavior and the optional noise augmentation, and mentions the return shape. It omits important behavioral facts: the destructive-write protection implied by the 'overwrite' parameter, what happens when output_path is omitted (nullable, default null), and any processing cost or format constraints.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence followed by a short behavioral clause and a compact Args/Returns block. Every line adds information, and there is no filler.

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 6 parameters, the description covers the core effect and most parameters but leaves gaps: overwrite/file-protection semantics, the default output location when output_path is null, and any format or codec handling. The output schema means return values need not be explained, so the 'Returns' line is minor redundancy rather than a gap.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it gives units and defaults for amount (pixels, 10.0), angle (degrees, 0 = horizontal), and the 0-1 range for noise. It does not cover the 'overwrite' parameter at all, and describes output_path as an absolute path without noting it is optional/nullable and what the default means.

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 and effect: 'Apply RGB channel shift glitch effect', then explains the visual result (red and blue channels shifted in opposite directions for chromatic split). A reader knows exactly what it does. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as effect_chromatic_aberration, glitch_cmyk_split, or transition_glitch, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 guidance on when to choose this over effect_chromatic_aberration or glitch_cmyk_split, which produce visually similar channel-split results, nor any prerequisites (supported formats, whether input must be video). The only usage signal is the optional noise flag, which is a parameter trait rather than routing advice.

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