Apply GLSL TOP mapping

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and open-world. The description adds that it 'builds' a network, implying creation rather than modification. However, it does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing containers at the same path) or permissions needed, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action and composition, the second adds usage context. It is efficiently front-loaded with no extraneous information, earning a high mark for conciseness.

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's complexity (7 parameters, nested mapping object) and no output schema, the description provides adequate high-level purpose and usage but does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a path to the created container) or the overall workflow. It is minimally sufficient but could be more helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed explanations for all parameters. The description adds high-level context (pre-translated mapping, usage in importers) but does not provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool builds a self-contained GLSL TOP network from a pre-translated mapping. It distinguishes itself from higher-level import tools (e.g., import_shadertoy) by noting it's a foundation primitive used by those importers, and also available for power users with hand-translated fragments.

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 provides clear context: it's a low-level primitive intended for use by Shadertoy/ISF importers or directly by power users with pre-translated fragments. It implies that higher-level tools like import_shadertoy are alternatives when the mapping is not already prepared, but does not explicitly list exclusions or scenarios to avoid.

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