3D-aware post-processing passes

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: fixed pass order, skip/fallback behaviors for missing AOVs, automatic depthTOP creation, and return values. Annotations are readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description consistently describes a constructive, non-destructive operation.

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 a single, dense paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, order, fallbacks, and return values. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 complex tool with 17 parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains the pass chain, fallback conditions, auto-creation logic, and return data (paths, warnings). The agent has sufficient information to use 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?

Schema description coverage is low (35%), but the description compensates by explaining how key parameters affect behavior (e.g., normal_top empty skips SSR, depth_top auto-derivation). This adds meaning beyond the schema's individual parameter 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 verb 'Compose' and the resource 'a chain of 3D-aware post-processing passes inside a new baseCOMP'. It lists the specific passes (SSAO, SSR, DOF, motion blur), distinguishing this tool from generic post-processing siblings like apply_post_processing.

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 usage for creating a fixed-order post-processing chain with 3D AOVs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., apply_post_processing). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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