Apply post-processing

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it creates a new baseCOMP, wires effects in series, and returns a structured result. Annotations indicate non-read-only (mutating) and non-destructive, which aligns with the description. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether the parent_path must exist or if the operation is idempotent, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise (four sentences) and well-structured: purpose, process, output, and alternatives are each addressed in a front-loaded manner. No fluff or redundant information is present.

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 description covers the creation process, return format, and alternative tools, but is missing details like whether the parent_path is created if missing or prerequisites for the source_path. Given the tool's moderate complexity with three parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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% coverage with parameter descriptions. The description adds some nuance, e.g., explaining that source_path is pulled via a Select TOP and that certain effects in the enum redirect to another tool. Overall, the added value is moderate, meeting the baseline for a schema with high coverage.

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's purpose: 'Chain post-processing effects... onto an existing TOP'. It specifies the verb 'chain' and resource 'TOP', and distinguishes from siblings by naming create_color_grade, create_glitch, and post_passes_3d as alternatives for different use cases.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use create_color_grade or create_glitch instead when you want a single dedicated effect with its own exposed controls.' It also mentions that 3D-aware modes redirect to post_passes_3d. However, it does not cover all possible alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool beyond those cases.

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