Create volumetric field

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are not contradicted. Description adds key behavioral traits: it's a stacked-2D-slice approximation (not raymarched), no per-pixel ray traversal, returns summary JSON with node paths, preview, etc. Could include more on side effects, but openWorldHint leaves room.

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?

Single paragraph with front-loaded purpose, then architecture, caveat, alternative suggestion, performance guidance, and return value summary. No redundant sentences; every line adds value.

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 complexity, no output schema, and open annotation, description covers what it creates, how it works (Simplex noise, Beer-Lambert accumulation), limitations (approximation), performance, and output format. Complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds significant extra meaning: density maps to uDensity shader uniform, turbulence drives displacement weight, slice_count rewires cache stack, color_map enum explained. Each parameter's behavior and constraints are enriched beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it builds a stacked-slice fake-volumetric noise field with specific palettes. Explicitly distinguishes from a true raymarcher (planned create_volumetric_raymarch).

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?

Provides explicit when to use (stacked-2D-slice approximation) vs alternatives (true raymarcher). Gives performance and hardware guidance (cook cost linear, default 16 slices as sweet spot, drop to 4-8 on integrated GPUs).

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