Create cube-map dome

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds detail about creating a new baseCOMP under parent_path, listing created node types (cube-map source, GLSL remap, Null). It also mentions the return value includes a JSON block with paths and warnings. This goes beyond the annotations to disclose the tool's side effects and output structure.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and then provides technical details. It is relatively concise for the amount of information conveyed, though some sentences are dense with technical jargon. Overall, it communicates efficiently without excessive verbosity.

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, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is highly complete. It explains the entire pipeline from source to output, covers all parameters implicitly in context, and describes the return value (summary + JSON block). It also provides warnings about errors and preview images, leaving minimal gaps for the agent.

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, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining how parameters relate to the process (e.g., fov sets fisheye coverage, expose_controls exposes Fov and Rotation knobs, source can be omitted for a test scene). This provides meaningful semantics without being redundant.

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: creating a cube-map dome master, a higher-fidelity alternative to create_dome_output. It specifies the rendering process (cube-map mode, GLSL sampling) and differentiates from the sibling by mentioning it avoids pole-pinch/seam. This provides a specific verb+resource and explicit differentiation.

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 explicitly names the alternative create_dome_output and states this tool is the 'higher-fidelity follow-up'. It also explains when to use this over a flat equirectangular source by noting the avoidance of pole-pinch. While it doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use, the context is clear and the alternative is named, providing good guidance.

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