effect_noise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. While it mentions it writes to an output path, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it modifies the original, or any permission requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: two brief introductory sentences followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or verbosity.

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 tool is simple with 5 parameters. The description covers all parameters with defaults, explanations, and even a return value summary. Given that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description includes a detailed parameter list with meanings, defaults, and ranges (e.g., intensity 0-1, mode options). This adds significant value beyond the plain schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Apply film grain or digital noise' and specifies it 'Adds texture noise to video for vintage or lo-fi aesthetics.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like effect_glow or effect_scanlines.

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 implies usage for vintage/lo-fi aesthetics but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like effect_scanlines or glitch effects. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.

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