Create shader from library

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

Annotations already indicate nondestructive, open-world behavior. The description adds that it creates a GLSL TOP with live controls and a self-contained container, which is valuable context. It does not detail potential side effects like network modifications or performance impact, but the core creation behavior is well communicated.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and lists examples; the second provides a value proposition and differentiation. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, differentiation, and key behavioral aspects (creation of GLSL TOP with controls). It does not cover error handling or output beyond the schema, but given the schema and annotation coverage, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema already explains each parameter well. The description mentions curated shaders and live controls but does not add new parameter-specific details beyond the schema. It meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 instantiates a curated, ready-to-run GLSL shader from a library, listing specific shader names. It distinguishes itself from the sibling create_glsl_shader by emphasizing built-in shaders versus arbitrary code, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly contrasts with create_glsl_shader, guiding the agent to prefer this tool when built-in shaders are desired. However, it does not address prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with other sibling tools like create_shader_park, leaving minor gaps.

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