Create kaleidoscope

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: output is a TOP, input_path uses a Select TOP with cross-container wiring no-ops, and omitting input_path generates noise. These details go beyond annotations and provide clear behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, controls, and usage modes, plus a final sentence on output. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, two usage modes, and output type. It does not mention performance implications or side effects, but annotations cover safety. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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 description coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds marginal value by confirming the live controls correspond to Segments/Rotation/Zoom/Center parameters, and clarifies input_path usage. However, it does not significantly expand on 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 wraps a source in a kaleidoscope/radial-mirror symmetry effect, describing it as a signature VJ look. It specifies the effect folds the image into N mirrored wedges with live controls. The distinct purpose and verb+resource make it highly distinguishable from sibling tools like create_glitch or create_audio_reactive.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to apply a kaleidoscope effect) and gives specific usage guidance: pass input_path to kaleidoscope an existing visual, or omit to generate a self-contained noise source. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it.

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