Create dome output

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

The description details the created nodes (Select TOP, GLSL TOP, Text DAT, Null) and explains the shader behavior for each projection mode. It also mentions the optional Rotation knob when expose_controls is true, and warns that this is a GLSL remap, not a true cubemap render. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 plus a note, all front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value (purpose, alternative, technical details, fidelity note). No unnecessary words.

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 complexity of creating a dome output network, the description covers the workflow (source, shader, controls, output Null), distinguishes from siblings, and notes fidelity trade-offs. The lack of an output schema is compensated by stating the output is a Null TOP ready for setup_output. It is complete for the tool's purpose.

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 already covers 83% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds extra context: it links fov to the fisheye shader, explains expose_controls exposes a Rotation knob, and clarifies projection modes. The parent_path parameter is left unexplained, but the description is still strong overall.

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 remaps a source TOP into a square dome master for planetarium fulldomes, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_multi_output by being the curved complement to flat tiling. The verb 'Remap' and specific output are immediately apparent.

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: as the curved complement to create_multi_output's flat tiling, and notes that a true cubemap render is a higher-fidelity follow-up. It also explains the two projection modes (fisheye vs equirectangular) and their behaviors, helping the agent decide based on the desired result.

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