Embroidery Effect

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

With annotations present (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) the safety profile is already covered, so the description's job is additive. It contributes two genuinely useful facts not in structured data: the fixed '13 credits' cost and the fact that 'result files are saved to disk and their paths returned.' It stays silent on async/job timing, but wait/timeout_seconds in the schema cover that.

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?

Front-loads the action ('render the design as embroidery') before the option list, then closes with cost and output location. The 11-item stitch enumeration is somewhat list-heavy and duplicates the schema enum, marginally reducing density but not obscuring the core intent.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully states that files are written to disk and paths are returned, closing the biggest return-value gap. Credit cost and the sampling-oriented use case are also covered, though job lifecycle and failure behavior remain unspecified.

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 100% and every enum option carries a human-readable label plus an explicit 'omit it and the tool returns the modes' instruction, so the schema already does all parameter work. The description's stitch-type list merely restates the enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'render the design as embroidery,' and enumerates the exact stitch styles available, so an agent knows precisely what transform this performs. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the many adjacent effect siblings (td_3d_effect, td_channeling, td_style_transfer), leaving that routing to inference.

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?

'Best for: previewing a design as realistic embroidery or Indian craftwork (e.g. Zardozi, Chikankari, Phulkari) before sampling' gives a clear use context including the pre-sampling workflow. No when-not conditions or named alternatives are provided, and given the large sibling set of effect tools that is a real gap.

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