Create glitch

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

Annotations indicate it's a creation tool. The description adds context about no device permissions, internal wiring, and knob exposure. It provides behavioral details beyond annotations, though it doesn't cover error handling.

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, front-loaded with core purpose, followed by parameter highlights. No redundant language; every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema, but the description covers main behavior and all parameters adequately for a creative tool. Minor missing details on error cases, but overall sufficient.

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?

Schema coverage is 88% (high). The description adds functional relationships (e.g., amount scales both displacement and split, block_size affects tear coarseness) and context for binding. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 it builds a glitch/corrupted-signal visual with specific effects (RGB channel split, noise-driven displacement, horizontal tearing). It differentiates between using an input_path or a self-contained source, and mentions it's a 'signature live VJ look.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 explains when to use input_path vs. self-contained source, and mentions the Amount knob can be bound to audio/beat, implying live performance use. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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