Create visual system

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

Annotations are present (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true) and consistent. The description adds behavioral context: classifying intent, building a self-contained COMP, and verifying/previewing, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 the core action. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers creation, classification, build, verification, and preview. No output schema exists, but annotations compensate. Missing details like error handling or prerequisites, but sufficient for a create 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 coverage is 75%, with descriptions for resolution and target_fps indicating they are advisory. The description mentions 'natural-language description' for the required param but adds little beyond schema for others. It does not elaborate on how parameters affect the build process.

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 explicitly states it creates a complete visual system from natural language, classifies intent into specific categories, builds into a self-contained COMP, and verifies/previews it. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_audio_reactive which are more focused.

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 implies this tool is for general visual system creation, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus more specific tools like create_audio_reactive or create_generative_art. No when-not or alternatives are mentioned.

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