Create glitch

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds that it creates a new baseCOMP, uses a self-contained source if no input (no device permissions), exposes knobs, and returns a summary with JSON. This provides behavioral context beyond annotations, though it could mention error handling or side effects.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently covers the key aspects: what it builds, input sources, exposed controls, and return value. Some structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but it's not necessary.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview: it explains the generated system, input options, knobs, and return format. It lacks details on error handling or default behavior when parent_path is invalid, but overall covers the essentials.

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, with each parameter already well-described. The tool description adds high-level context (e.g., Amount is master intensity) but does not significantly augment the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 glitch/corrupted-signal visual with specific techniques (RGB channel split, noise-driven displacement, horizontal band tearing). It lists the components created (baseCOMP, source, noise driver, Displace TOP, GLSL RGB-shift pass, Null output). This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_datamosh or create_displacement_warp.

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 the tool (to create a glitch visual) and provides context on input options (existing TOP vs. self-contained source). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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