Create flow abstraction

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

The description discloses that the tool creates nodes, exposes Strength/Edge/Iterations as live uniform parameters while baking others like blur radius and sigmas, and notes that iterations are in-shader without a feedback loop. This goes beyond annotations, but it misses potential prerequisites (e.g., does the parent_path need to exist? is source validated?).

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 tightly written in 4-5 sentences, front-loading the main purpose and algorithm, then detailing node creation and parameter behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or 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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the algorithm, nodes created, parameter roles (uniform vs baked), and mentions use of Select TOP and Null TOP. It is complete for a creation tool, though it could mention potential side effects or prerequisites for completeness.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: it identifies which parameters are dynamic uniforms versus baked at build time, and clarifies the behavior of iterations (in-shader, no ping-pong). This enriches the schema descriptions.

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 two-pass Kyprianidis-style flow abstraction using ETF and FDoG, specifying the exact nodes created (two glslTOPs, textDATs, Select TOP, Null TOP). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools, many of which are generic 'create_*' functions.

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 for generating a specific stylized effect (oil-painting interiors with ink edges) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or provide exclusions. The context is implicit, but no direct guidance is given.

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