ai_combine_new

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does: it states the operation is local-only, makes no network call, deducts no credits, and creates no cloud draft. It further discloses that official apply_workflow_patch saves a cloud draft on each edit and that generate_workflow costs credits, which is exactly the side-effect context an agent needs.

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 purpose and the no-side-effect guarantees are front-loaded, followed by the workflow chain. It is dense and long for a two-parameter tool, but nearly every clause carries operational meaning (credit cost, cloud drafts, the menu_add warning), so little is wasted.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the return values (ai_graph_id plus each node's node_id) and what the caller must do with them. Combined with the downstream tool chain and cost caveats, an agent has everything needed to call it and continue 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 coverage is 100%, so instance_id and project_path are already documented (mutually exclusive, both optional when only one project window is open). The description adds no additional guidance about those parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: creating a local 'AI 组合效果' workflow graph with exactly two unconnected nodes ('输入图' and '效果组合'). It explicitly contrasts this with the sibling menu_add ('只建空壳，不要用 menu_add') and with ai_combine_apply, so an agent can distinguish it from all nearby tools.

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?

States the full call sequence: create here, then use official get_workflow_context / get_workflow_capabilities / apply_workflow_patch to add generation nodes and wire them, then generate_workflow to preview, then ai_combine_apply to place in the scene. It also gives an explicit exclusion ('不要用 menu_add') with the reason.

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