Apply post-processing

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not contradict them. It adds that the tool returns processed output, but does not clarify whether the original TOP is modified or a new node is created, nor does it discuss side effects, performance, or error handling. With annotations already covering safety, the bar is lowered, but additional context about output behavior would be helpful.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the key action. Every word adds value. The length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It explains what the tool does, what it acts on, and what it returns. The only gap is the lack of detail on how the processed output is delivered (e.g., a new node vs. data) and no mention of the parent_path parameter. Overall, it is mostly complete for the complexity level.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by providing example effects (bloom, glitch, etc.) and clarifying that effects are chained onto an existing TOP, which informs the source_path parameter. Schema coverage is 67% (parent_path lacks description), but the examples and usage context compensate. The description does not explain parent_path, but the default value reduces ambiguity.

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 action ('chain post-processing effects'), the resource ('onto an existing TOP'), and the return value ('returns the processed output'). Examples of effects are given, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that create new effects nodes (e.g., create_glitch) by specifying application to an existing TOP.

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 context (requires an existing TOP) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No comparisons to sibling tools that might achieve similar results (e.g., creating new effect chains separately).

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