compose_character

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

With no annotations present, the description fully discloses side effects and behavior: it writes design/compose_preview.png, inserts design layers full after draw_after with no clip-to-body, and notes that build_frame_animation refuses without this compose preview and rigid-rotates design PNGs. This goes well beyond a minimal 'compiles the character' statement.

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 definition is dense but front-loaded with the core formula and required ordering, then uses labeled gates to organize the workflow. Nearly every sentence carries a distinct piece of information, though the repeated emphasis on animation ordering is slightly redundant.

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 pipeline complexity and absence of annotations, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, gates, and downstream failure modes exceptionally well. It stops short of full completeness only because the parameter semantics are left entirely to the schema, which itself has no descriptions.

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% and the description does not define any of the four parameters (name, scale, output_dir, include_skipped). The tool reference to the preview file does not clarify parameter behavior, so the agent must guess what include_skipped or output_dir actually control.

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 opens with a concrete specification: 'Compose dressed rest = base body + design layers' and labels it 'required before anim,' giving an agent a clear verb, resource, and pipeline position. This distinguishes it from sibling generation/animation tools such as generate_character and plan_animation.

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?

It provides an explicit GATE: 'call after painting layers... BEFORE plan_animation,' plus a soft-gate caveat for missing shading plans and a HUMAN EDIT GATE after return. This directly tells the agent when to invoke the tool and what to do next.

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