Create LED pixel-mapper

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing network resizing behavior, one-texel-per-pixel sampling, RGB preservation, default moving Ramp test source, returned data (node paths, channel count, warnings), and live Brightness/Universe controls on the parent COMP. This gives the agent a rich behavioral model without contradicting 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then behavioral details, then usage guidance and alternative tool. No filler or redundancy; 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?

Despite having 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it versus the sibling tool, and critical operational caveats. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description supplements parameter meaning by explaining how width/height relate to the pixel grid, how the Ramp source becomes the default when source is omitted, and how the chain preserves RGB. This adds conceptual context beyond the schema's per-parameter notes.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build a pixel-mapping chain from a source TOP to an LED fixture grid and DMX Out CHOP over Art-Net or sACN.' It clearly states both the transformation and the output, and distinguishes itself from create_dmx_fixture_pipeline by focusing on image-to-pixel mapping.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use create_dmx_fixture_pipeline for fixture patching and this tool when you specifically need image-to-pixel mapping.' It also adds a practical operational caveat about needing a reachable fixture/node and verifying before sending.

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